Kerry Dooley Young

The global withdrawal of voxelotor (Oxbryta, Pfizer) has left clinicians who treat sickle cell disease (SCD) with the urgent task of reaching patients taking the medicine, while trying to understand why it was taken off the market.

The National Alliance of Sickle Cell Centers issued a statement urging patients not to stop voxelotor abruptly. Instead, they should work out plans with their physicians and medical teams for weaning plans.

“Don’t lose faith. This a step backward, but we will stay on the path to better outcomes for everyone,” said the alliance in a statement to patients and clinicians.

On September 25, Pfizer said it would withdraw all lots of voxelotor in all markets where it is approved. The New York–based drugmaker also said it was discontinuing all active voxelotor clinical trials and expanded access programs worldwide. The cause was data that suggested “an imbalance in vaso-occlusive crises and fatal events which require further assessment.”

Pfizer told this news organization in an email exchange that it is focused on analyzing the data and will share updates in the future about presenting or publishing on this issue.

The withdrawal came amid increased scrutiny of the drug by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The EMA in July began a review of voxelotor after data from a clinical trial showed that a higher number of deaths occurred with the drug than with placebo and another trial showed the total number of deaths was higher than anticipated.

On September 26, the EMA’s human medicines committee recommended suspending the marketing authorization of voxelotor, citing new safety data that emerged during the review. The drug had received marketing authorization for the European Union in 2022, the agency said.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which first cleared voxelotor for sale in 2019, also said it has been conducting a safety review of the drug. The agency continues to examine post-marketing clinical trial data for voxelotor, the real-world registry studies, and data from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. At the conclusion of this review, the FDA will communicate any additional findings, if necessary, the agency said.

The FDA said it appeared that more deaths and a higher rate of vaso-occlusive crisis occurred in patients taking voxelotor vs placebo in post-marketing clinical trials.

“Pfizer also observed a higher rate of vaso-occlusive crisis in patients with sickle cell disease receiving Oxbryta in two real-world registry studies,” the FDA said. “Based on the totality of clinical data, Pfizer has determined the benefit of Oxbryta does not outweigh the risk.”
 

Gene Therapy, Tried-and-True Hydroxyurea (HU)

As a field, SCD has drawn more interest in recent years, with significant gains made lately in cutting-edge projects.

The FDA in December approved two gene-editing treatments for patients aged 12 years or older. These are considered “milestone treatments” for a debilitating and potentially life-threatening blood disorder that affects about 100,000 people in the United States. Exagamglogene autotemcel (Casgevy, Vertex Pharmaceuticals and CRISPR Therapeutics) is the first to use the gene-editing tool CRISPR. And lovotibeglogene autotemcel (Lyfgenia, bluebird bio) uses a different gene-editing tool called a lentiviral vector.

These advances have been covered widely by the news media but are not expected to be widely available, with the cost of these extensive treatments estimated around $2-$3 million per patient.

“Gene therapy is amazing in that it can offer a cure, but it’s very expensive and not all patients are suitable for it. Some have so much existing organ damage that it’s not an option for them,” said John Wood, MD, PhD, director of cardiovascular MRI at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, who does research on SCD.

“So it really is a great treatment for a very few people,” he said in an interview.

The mainstay of treatment for SCD remains a drug that Lydia Pecker, MD, a pediatric hematologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, describes as the “first, oldest, and best”: HU.

The FDA approved this in 1998 for use in SCD. It reduces the frequency of painful crises and acute chest syndrome and other complications of SCD that otherwise could be serious or even lethal, Pecker said.

“Older doctors can tell you that what they experienced with sickle cell disease in the hospitals has been completely transformed because of the high uptake of the drug,” she said, adding that it made a “profound” change. “We just don’t have data for any other agent that’s quite like that.”

Voxelotor had been a good second drug to add for some patients, in addition to HU and blood transfusions, Dr. Pecker noted. It was a first-line drug for those for whom transfusion and HU were not options, which constitutes a relatively small number of patients, she said.

“So we have, in the last 5 years, felt more hopeful because we had something else to offer,” she said.

Alexis A. Thompson, MD, MPH, chief of the Division of Hematology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, said in an interview that her organization also had patients who appeared to benefit from voxelotor, some of whom had been participants in clinical trials.

Dr. Thompson, who has been a top researcher involved in the study of gene therapy, urged the need for companies to keep seeking to expand the options for people with SCD, even after the setback with voxelotor.

“I hope that there’s an appreciation for the need for continued investment in this very serious condition, for which there are insufficient options for treatments,” Dr. Thompson said. “So ongoing investment is really needed if we expect to make progress.”

Dr. Pecker disclosed ties with Novartis, Afimmune, the American Society of Hematology, and the National Institutes of Health. Thompson reported relationships with bluebird bio, Beam, Editas, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The global withdrawal of voxelotor (Oxbryta, Pfizer) has left clinicians who treat sickle cell disease (SCD) with the urgent task of reaching patients taking the medicine, while trying to understand why it was taken off the market.

The National Alliance of Sickle Cell Centers issued a statement urging patients not to stop voxelotor abruptly. Instead, they should work out plans with their physicians and medical teams for weaning plans.

“Don’t lose faith. This a step backward, but we will stay on the path to better outcomes for everyone,” said the alliance in a statement to patients and clinicians.

On September 25, Pfizer said it would withdraw all lots of voxelotor in all markets where it is approved. The New York–based drugmaker also said it was discontinuing all active voxelotor clinical trials and expanded access programs worldwide. The cause was data that suggested “an imbalance in vaso-occlusive crises and fatal events which require further assessment.”

Pfizer told this news organization in an email exchange that it is focused on analyzing the data and will share updates in the future about presenting or publishing on this issue.

The withdrawal came amid increased scrutiny of the drug by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The EMA in July began a review of voxelotor after data from a clinical trial showed that a higher number of deaths occurred with the drug than with placebo and another trial showed the total number of deaths was higher than anticipated.

On September 26, the EMA’s human medicines committee recommended suspending the marketing authorization of voxelotor, citing new safety data that emerged during the review. The drug had received marketing authorization for the European Union in 2022, the agency said.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which first cleared voxelotor for sale in 2019, also said it has been conducting a safety review of the drug. The agency continues to examine post-marketing clinical trial data for voxelotor, the real-world registry studies, and data from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. At the conclusion of this review, the FDA will communicate any additional findings, if necessary, the agency said.

The FDA said it appeared that more deaths and a higher rate of vaso-occlusive crisis occurred in patients taking voxelotor vs placebo in post-marketing clinical trials.

“Pfizer also observed a higher rate of vaso-occlusive crisis in patients with sickle cell disease receiving Oxbryta in two real-world registry studies,” the FDA said. “Based on the totality of clinical data, Pfizer has determined the benefit of Oxbryta does not outweigh the risk.”
 

Gene Therapy, Tried-and-True Hydroxyurea (HU)

As a field, SCD has drawn more interest in recent years, with significant gains made lately in cutting-edge projects.

The FDA in December approved two gene-editing treatments for patients aged 12 years or older. These are considered “milestone treatments” for a debilitating and potentially life-threatening blood disorder that affects about 100,000 people in the United States. Exagamglogene autotemcel (Casgevy, Vertex Pharmaceuticals and CRISPR Therapeutics) is the first to use the gene-editing tool CRISPR. And lovotibeglogene autotemcel (Lyfgenia, bluebird bio) uses a different gene-editing tool called a lentiviral vector.

These advances have been covered widely by the news media but are not expected to be widely available, with the cost of these extensive treatments estimated around $2-$3 million per patient.

“Gene therapy is amazing in that it can offer a cure, but it’s very expensive and not all patients are suitable for it. Some have so much existing organ damage that it’s not an option for them,” said John Wood, MD, PhD, director of cardiovascular MRI at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, who does research on SCD.

“So it really is a great treatment for a very few people,” he said in an interview.

The mainstay of treatment for SCD remains a drug that Lydia Pecker, MD, a pediatric hematologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, describes as the “first, oldest, and best”: HU.

The FDA approved this in 1998 for use in SCD. It reduces the frequency of painful crises and acute chest syndrome and other complications of SCD that otherwise could be serious or even lethal, Pecker said.

“Older doctors can tell you that what they experienced with sickle cell disease in the hospitals has been completely transformed because of the high uptake of the drug,” she said, adding that it made a “profound” change. “We just don’t have data for any other agent that’s quite like that.”

Voxelotor had been a good second drug to add for some patients, in addition to HU and blood transfusions, Dr. Pecker noted. It was a first-line drug for those for whom transfusion and HU were not options, which constitutes a relatively small number of patients, she said.

“So we have, in the last 5 years, felt more hopeful because we had something else to offer,” she said.

Alexis A. Thompson, MD, MPH, chief of the Division of Hematology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, said in an interview that her organization also had patients who appeared to benefit from voxelotor, some of whom had been participants in clinical trials.

Dr. Thompson, who has been a top researcher involved in the study of gene therapy, urged the need for companies to keep seeking to expand the options for people with SCD, even after the setback with voxelotor.

“I hope that there’s an appreciation for the need for continued investment in this very serious condition, for which there are insufficient options for treatments,” Dr. Thompson said. “So ongoing investment is really needed if we expect to make progress.”

Dr. Pecker disclosed ties with Novartis, Afimmune, the American Society of Hematology, and the National Institutes of Health. Thompson reported relationships with bluebird bio, Beam, Editas, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The global withdrawal of voxelotor (Oxbryta, Pfizer) has left clinicians who treat sickle cell disease (SCD) with the urgent task of reaching patients taking the medicine, while trying to understand why it was taken off the market.

The National Alliance of Sickle Cell Centers issued a statement urging patients not to stop voxelotor abruptly. Instead, they should work out plans with their physicians and medical teams for weaning plans.

“Don’t lose faith. This a step backward, but we will stay on the path to better outcomes for everyone,” said the alliance in a statement to patients and clinicians.

On September 25, Pfizer said it would withdraw all lots of voxelotor in all markets where it is approved. The New York–based drugmaker also said it was discontinuing all active voxelotor clinical trials and expanded access programs worldwide. The cause was data that suggested “an imbalance in vaso-occlusive crises and fatal events which require further assessment.”

Pfizer told this news organization in an email exchange that it is focused on analyzing the data and will share updates in the future about presenting or publishing on this issue.

The withdrawal came amid increased scrutiny of the drug by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The EMA in July began a review of voxelotor after data from a clinical trial showed that a higher number of deaths occurred with the drug than with placebo and another trial showed the total number of deaths was higher than anticipated.

On September 26, the EMA’s human medicines committee recommended suspending the marketing authorization of voxelotor, citing new safety data that emerged during the review. The drug had received marketing authorization for the European Union in 2022, the agency said.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which first cleared voxelotor for sale in 2019, also said it has been conducting a safety review of the drug. The agency continues to examine post-marketing clinical trial data for voxelotor, the real-world registry studies, and data from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. At the conclusion of this review, the FDA will communicate any additional findings, if necessary, the agency said.

The FDA said it appeared that more deaths and a higher rate of vaso-occlusive crisis occurred in patients taking voxelotor vs placebo in post-marketing clinical trials.

“Pfizer also observed a higher rate of vaso-occlusive crisis in patients with sickle cell disease receiving Oxbryta in two real-world registry studies,” the FDA said. “Based on the totality of clinical data, Pfizer has determined the benefit of Oxbryta does not outweigh the risk.”
 

Gene Therapy, Tried-and-True Hydroxyurea (HU)

As a field, SCD has drawn more interest in recent years, with significant gains made lately in cutting-edge projects.

The FDA in December approved two gene-editing treatments for patients aged 12 years or older. These are considered “milestone treatments” for a debilitating and potentially life-threatening blood disorder that affects about 100,000 people in the United States. Exagamglogene autotemcel (Casgevy, Vertex Pharmaceuticals and CRISPR Therapeutics) is the first to use the gene-editing tool CRISPR. And lovotibeglogene autotemcel (Lyfgenia, bluebird bio) uses a different gene-editing tool called a lentiviral vector.

These advances have been covered widely by the news media but are not expected to be widely available, with the cost of these extensive treatments estimated around $2-$3 million per patient.

“Gene therapy is amazing in that it can offer a cure, but it’s very expensive and not all patients are suitable for it. Some have so much existing organ damage that it’s not an option for them,” said John Wood, MD, PhD, director of cardiovascular MRI at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, who does research on SCD.

“So it really is a great treatment for a very few people,” he said in an interview.

The mainstay of treatment for SCD remains a drug that Lydia Pecker, MD, a pediatric hematologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, describes as the “first, oldest, and best”: HU.

The FDA approved this in 1998 for use in SCD. It reduces the frequency of painful crises and acute chest syndrome and other complications of SCD that otherwise could be serious or even lethal, Pecker said.

“Older doctors can tell you that what they experienced with sickle cell disease in the hospitals has been completely transformed because of the high uptake of the drug,” she said, adding that it made a “profound” change. “We just don’t have data for any other agent that’s quite like that.”

Voxelotor had been a good second drug to add for some patients, in addition to HU and blood transfusions, Dr. Pecker noted. It was a first-line drug for those for whom transfusion and HU were not options, which constitutes a relatively small number of patients, she said.

“So we have, in the last 5 years, felt more hopeful because we had something else to offer,” she said.

Alexis A. Thompson, MD, MPH, chief of the Division of Hematology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, said in an interview that her organization also had patients who appeared to benefit from voxelotor, some of whom had been participants in clinical trials.

Dr. Thompson, who has been a top researcher involved in the study of gene therapy, urged the need for companies to keep seeking to expand the options for people with SCD, even after the setback with voxelotor.

“I hope that there’s an appreciation for the need for continued investment in this very serious condition, for which there are insufficient options for treatments,” Dr. Thompson said. “So ongoing investment is really needed if we expect to make progress.”

Dr. Pecker disclosed ties with Novartis, Afimmune, the American Society of Hematology, and the National Institutes of Health. Thompson reported relationships with bluebird bio, Beam, Editas, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People who received systemic glucocorticoids during short hospital stays were more than twice as likely to develop new onset diabetes than those who didn’t, reported the authors of a large study that analyzed more than a decade’s worth of patient records.

Rajna Golubic, MD, PhD, of the diabetes trials unit at the University of Oxford, United Kingdom, and colleagues did an observational cohort study, using data from electronic healthcare records of more than patients admitted between January 1, 2013, and October 1, 2023.

They looked for patients who didn’t have a diabetes diagnosis at the time of admission and who were not taking a steroid. Their research was presented this month at the 2024 annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) in Madrid, Spain.

About 1.8%, of 316, of the 17,258 patients who received systemic glucocorticoids (tablets, injections, or infusions) during their hospital stay developed new-onset diabetes, while this happened to only 0.8%, or 3450, of the 434,348 who did not get these drugs, according to an abstract of the EASD presentation.

The median length of stay was 3 days (2-8) for the group of patients who took steroids, compared with 1 day (1-3) in those who did not. Further analysis showed that, when age and sex were factored in, patients receiving systemic glucocorticoids were more than twice as likely (2.6 times) to develop diabetes as those not receiving the treatment, Dr. Golubic said.

This research builds on previous studies that looked at smaller groups of patients and the diabetes risk in patients with specific conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. Golubic said. It may prove helpful for clinicians considering when to employ steroids, which are useful medications for managing inflammation associated with many conditions.

“This gives them a very good estimate of how much more likely people treated with systemic glucocorticoids are to develop new-onset diabetes,” Dr. Golubic said.

Glucocorticoids have for decades been used for managing acute and chronic inflammatory diseases. The link to diabetes has been previously reported in smaller studies and in ones linked to specific conditions such as respiratory disease and rheumatoid arthritis.

Carolyn Cummins, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Toronto, Canada, who was not part of this study, told this news organization she was pleased to see a study of diabetes and steroids done with the scope that Dr. Golubic and colleagues undertook. Dr. Cummins in 2022 published an article titled “Fresh insights into glucocorticoid-induced diabetes mellitus and new therapeutic directions” in Nature Reviews Endocrinology. 

“We know that this is an issue, but we didn’t necessarily know numerically how significant it was,” Dr. Cummins said. “I would say it wasn’t a surprising finding, but it’s nice to actually have the numbers from a large study.”

Dr. Golubic and Dr. Cummins reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People who received systemic glucocorticoids during short hospital stays were more than twice as likely to develop new onset diabetes than those who didn’t, reported the authors of a large study that analyzed more than a decade’s worth of patient records.

Rajna Golubic, MD, PhD, of the diabetes trials unit at the University of Oxford, United Kingdom, and colleagues did an observational cohort study, using data from electronic healthcare records of more than patients admitted between January 1, 2013, and October 1, 2023.

They looked for patients who didn’t have a diabetes diagnosis at the time of admission and who were not taking a steroid. Their research was presented this month at the 2024 annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) in Madrid, Spain.

About 1.8%, of 316, of the 17,258 patients who received systemic glucocorticoids (tablets, injections, or infusions) during their hospital stay developed new-onset diabetes, while this happened to only 0.8%, or 3450, of the 434,348 who did not get these drugs, according to an abstract of the EASD presentation.

The median length of stay was 3 days (2-8) for the group of patients who took steroids, compared with 1 day (1-3) in those who did not. Further analysis showed that, when age and sex were factored in, patients receiving systemic glucocorticoids were more than twice as likely (2.6 times) to develop diabetes as those not receiving the treatment, Dr. Golubic said.

This research builds on previous studies that looked at smaller groups of patients and the diabetes risk in patients with specific conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. Golubic said. It may prove helpful for clinicians considering when to employ steroids, which are useful medications for managing inflammation associated with many conditions.

“This gives them a very good estimate of how much more likely people treated with systemic glucocorticoids are to develop new-onset diabetes,” Dr. Golubic said.

Glucocorticoids have for decades been used for managing acute and chronic inflammatory diseases. The link to diabetes has been previously reported in smaller studies and in ones linked to specific conditions such as respiratory disease and rheumatoid arthritis.

Carolyn Cummins, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Toronto, Canada, who was not part of this study, told this news organization she was pleased to see a study of diabetes and steroids done with the scope that Dr. Golubic and colleagues undertook. Dr. Cummins in 2022 published an article titled “Fresh insights into glucocorticoid-induced diabetes mellitus and new therapeutic directions” in Nature Reviews Endocrinology. 

“We know that this is an issue, but we didn’t necessarily know numerically how significant it was,” Dr. Cummins said. “I would say it wasn’t a surprising finding, but it’s nice to actually have the numbers from a large study.”

Dr. Golubic and Dr. Cummins reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People who received systemic glucocorticoids during short hospital stays were more than twice as likely to develop new onset diabetes than those who didn’t, reported the authors of a large study that analyzed more than a decade’s worth of patient records.

Rajna Golubic, MD, PhD, of the diabetes trials unit at the University of Oxford, United Kingdom, and colleagues did an observational cohort study, using data from electronic healthcare records of more than patients admitted between January 1, 2013, and October 1, 2023.

They looked for patients who didn’t have a diabetes diagnosis at the time of admission and who were not taking a steroid. Their research was presented this month at the 2024 annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) in Madrid, Spain.

About 1.8%, of 316, of the 17,258 patients who received systemic glucocorticoids (tablets, injections, or infusions) during their hospital stay developed new-onset diabetes, while this happened to only 0.8%, or 3450, of the 434,348 who did not get these drugs, according to an abstract of the EASD presentation.

The median length of stay was 3 days (2-8) for the group of patients who took steroids, compared with 1 day (1-3) in those who did not. Further analysis showed that, when age and sex were factored in, patients receiving systemic glucocorticoids were more than twice as likely (2.6 times) to develop diabetes as those not receiving the treatment, Dr. Golubic said.

This research builds on previous studies that looked at smaller groups of patients and the diabetes risk in patients with specific conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. Golubic said. It may prove helpful for clinicians considering when to employ steroids, which are useful medications for managing inflammation associated with many conditions.

“This gives them a very good estimate of how much more likely people treated with systemic glucocorticoids are to develop new-onset diabetes,” Dr. Golubic said.

Glucocorticoids have for decades been used for managing acute and chronic inflammatory diseases. The link to diabetes has been previously reported in smaller studies and in ones linked to specific conditions such as respiratory disease and rheumatoid arthritis.

Carolyn Cummins, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Toronto, Canada, who was not part of this study, told this news organization she was pleased to see a study of diabetes and steroids done with the scope that Dr. Golubic and colleagues undertook. Dr. Cummins in 2022 published an article titled “Fresh insights into glucocorticoid-induced diabetes mellitus and new therapeutic directions” in Nature Reviews Endocrinology. 

“We know that this is an issue, but we didn’t necessarily know numerically how significant it was,” Dr. Cummins said. “I would say it wasn’t a surprising finding, but it’s nice to actually have the numbers from a large study.”

Dr. Golubic and Dr. Cummins reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A US government report showed how a Medicare policy change made the drug ustekinumab (Stelara) for autoimmune diseases much more expensive, a finding that experts say illustrates the need for reforms created by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA).

The topline findings of an August report from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) about ustekinumab may seem somewhat surprising and a bit counterintuitive.

Ustekinumab costs spiked as Medicare pushed patients to get their supply through the Part D pharmacy program. The aim of Part D is to make medicines more affordable and accessible for patients. It runs on a model of insurers to negotiate deals for pharmaceuticals.

Earlier, many patients who needed ustekinumab had the drug covered by Medicare Part B. For many years, Medicare Part B has been largely a passive purchaser of medicines. Part B covers drugs administered by physicians. Its longtime model has been to add a premium of 6% to the reported average sales price to reimburse physicians who buy and administer the drug for patients.

But it was Part D, the Medicare program based on insurers’ negotiating clout, that saw a spike in ustekinumab costs after patients were shifted out of Part B coverage, where the cost of the medicine fell.

The average reported Part B cost for an ustekinumab injection slipped from $14,450 in 2016 to $12,912 by 2023, according to the report from HHS’ Office of Inspector General (OIG).

The Part D cost jumped in the same period. It rose by 84% from $17,717 in 2016 to $32,559 by 2023.

The IRA is intended to curb these kinds of increases in the future for drugs covered by Medicare, said Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, professor of health policy at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee. The law demands companies pay rebates to Medicare if they increase drug prices faster than consumer inflation.

“That should at least help with some of this price growth that over time has seemed quite egregious,” Dr. Dusetzina told this news organization.

The IRA contains several provisions intended to curb rising drug costs for people enrolled in Medicare, including allowing the federal government to directly negotiate on some medicines.

Ustekinumab is one of the first 10 medicines that are subject to negotiations. Medicare will select as many as 15 additional drugs covered under Part D for negotiation in 2025, another 15 Part B and D drugs in 2026, and up to 20 drugs every year after that.

Earlier in August, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced the results of its first drug negotiations, with prices set to take effect in 2026. The Part D price for a 30-day supply of ustekinumab will be $4695 in 2026, a 66% reduction from the list price last year of $13,836.

Even at the negotiated price, ustekinumab’s cost will be high enough to trigger a new cap on out-of-pocket Part D spending, Dr. Dusetzina said.

Starting in 2025, Part D will have a cap of $2000 on individuals’ out-of-pocket costs, with annual adjustments in future years.

“It may not be better for someone who was filling this on Part B, who had a supplement [that covered their share of the ustekinumab cost], but it will be better for a lot of people that it’s covered under Part D,” Dr. Dusetzina said. “The good news is that at least from a beneficiary affordability standpoint, they’re going to have some price protection.”

OIG noted that the US Food and Drug Administration has approved three competing biosimilar versions of ustekinumab. These could also potentially work to lower costs.
 

‘A Complicated and Not Particularly Transparent Process’

OIG said it expects to release a report later this year with more detail about the decision that shifted ustekinumab coverage from Part B to Part D.

First cleared for US sales in 2009, ustekinumab is approved for psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis. It can be given subcutaneously or intravenously.

Part B does not generally cover self-administered drugs. The infused version of ustekinumab has been covered under Medicare Part B since it reached the market.

“However, Part B coverage of the subcutaneous versions has been less straightforward,” OIG said in the report.

In 2020, Medicare administrative contractors — the units or affiliates of insurers that for decades have processed Part B claims for the traditional Medicare programs — determined that subcutaneous ustekinumab did not meet the criteria for coverage under Part B. Implementation of this change was delayed due to the COVID public health emergency but has since taken effect.

The shift in ustekinumab coverage to Part D eroded financial protections of many people on Medicare when Part B covered the drug.

Almost 9 in 10 people enrolled in Medicare Part B have supplemental insurance such as Medigap, employer coverage, or Medicaid to fully or partially cover their cost-sharing requirements, the OIG report said. That means Part B coverage shielded many patients from high ustekinumab costs. 

In contrast, patients who self-administered the drug at home under Part D coverage paid an average of almost $6000 out of pocket if they did not receive any type of financial assistance, OIG said.

“From a financial standpoint, as long as you have Part B coinsurance, it would be much cheaper to get the drug in your doctor’s office than getting it through a pharmacy, unless you qualify for the low-income subsidy,” OIG Regional Inspector General David Tawes, who supervised the team that produced the report, told this news organization.

OIG has previously reported that post–point-of-sale rebates paid by manufacturers sometimes lower the costs incurred by Part D plans by a significant margin. But this was not the case with ustekinumab. Instead, OIG said the gap between initial and actual costs of ustekinumab was reduced by less than one third even with rebates. Rebate information is considered confidential.

“The whole negotiation structure is a complicated and not particularly transparent process,” Mr. Tawes said.
 

Backchannel Discounts, Top-Line Prices

The IRA is bringing some more transparency to the process through negotiations, said Mariana P. Socal, MD, associate professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. Patients who buy medicines that have been through the CMS negotiation process will be able to see if they are being charged correctly.

Dr. Socal noted that there’s something of a disconnect in discussions of Part D between how insurers and consumers view prices. 

For Part D plans, the list prices represent the beginning of negotiations. They get rebates from drugmakers’ list prices for medicines, which insurers say work to lower premium costs. 

“For plans, those prices are unrealistic. They are simply a sticker price. But for patients, for the Medicare beneficiaries, these prices are very real” because they are used to set copays, Dr. Socal said.

Dr. Dusetzina reported receiving funding from Arnold Ventures and the Commonwealth Fund for research related to drug pricing. Dr. Socal reported receiving funding from Arnold Ventures. 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A US government report showed how a Medicare policy change made the drug ustekinumab (Stelara) for autoimmune diseases much more expensive, a finding that experts say illustrates the need for reforms created by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA).

The topline findings of an August report from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) about ustekinumab may seem somewhat surprising and a bit counterintuitive.

Ustekinumab costs spiked as Medicare pushed patients to get their supply through the Part D pharmacy program. The aim of Part D is to make medicines more affordable and accessible for patients. It runs on a model of insurers to negotiate deals for pharmaceuticals.

Earlier, many patients who needed ustekinumab had the drug covered by Medicare Part B. For many years, Medicare Part B has been largely a passive purchaser of medicines. Part B covers drugs administered by physicians. Its longtime model has been to add a premium of 6% to the reported average sales price to reimburse physicians who buy and administer the drug for patients.

But it was Part D, the Medicare program based on insurers’ negotiating clout, that saw a spike in ustekinumab costs after patients were shifted out of Part B coverage, where the cost of the medicine fell.

The average reported Part B cost for an ustekinumab injection slipped from $14,450 in 2016 to $12,912 by 2023, according to the report from HHS’ Office of Inspector General (OIG).

The Part D cost jumped in the same period. It rose by 84% from $17,717 in 2016 to $32,559 by 2023.

The IRA is intended to curb these kinds of increases in the future for drugs covered by Medicare, said Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, professor of health policy at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee. The law demands companies pay rebates to Medicare if they increase drug prices faster than consumer inflation.

“That should at least help with some of this price growth that over time has seemed quite egregious,” Dr. Dusetzina told this news organization.

The IRA contains several provisions intended to curb rising drug costs for people enrolled in Medicare, including allowing the federal government to directly negotiate on some medicines.

Ustekinumab is one of the first 10 medicines that are subject to negotiations. Medicare will select as many as 15 additional drugs covered under Part D for negotiation in 2025, another 15 Part B and D drugs in 2026, and up to 20 drugs every year after that.

Earlier in August, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced the results of its first drug negotiations, with prices set to take effect in 2026. The Part D price for a 30-day supply of ustekinumab will be $4695 in 2026, a 66% reduction from the list price last year of $13,836.

Even at the negotiated price, ustekinumab’s cost will be high enough to trigger a new cap on out-of-pocket Part D spending, Dr. Dusetzina said.

Starting in 2025, Part D will have a cap of $2000 on individuals’ out-of-pocket costs, with annual adjustments in future years.

“It may not be better for someone who was filling this on Part B, who had a supplement [that covered their share of the ustekinumab cost], but it will be better for a lot of people that it’s covered under Part D,” Dr. Dusetzina said. “The good news is that at least from a beneficiary affordability standpoint, they’re going to have some price protection.”

OIG noted that the US Food and Drug Administration has approved three competing biosimilar versions of ustekinumab. These could also potentially work to lower costs.
 

‘A Complicated and Not Particularly Transparent Process’

OIG said it expects to release a report later this year with more detail about the decision that shifted ustekinumab coverage from Part B to Part D.

First cleared for US sales in 2009, ustekinumab is approved for psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis. It can be given subcutaneously or intravenously.

Part B does not generally cover self-administered drugs. The infused version of ustekinumab has been covered under Medicare Part B since it reached the market.

“However, Part B coverage of the subcutaneous versions has been less straightforward,” OIG said in the report.

In 2020, Medicare administrative contractors — the units or affiliates of insurers that for decades have processed Part B claims for the traditional Medicare programs — determined that subcutaneous ustekinumab did not meet the criteria for coverage under Part B. Implementation of this change was delayed due to the COVID public health emergency but has since taken effect.

The shift in ustekinumab coverage to Part D eroded financial protections of many people on Medicare when Part B covered the drug.

Almost 9 in 10 people enrolled in Medicare Part B have supplemental insurance such as Medigap, employer coverage, or Medicaid to fully or partially cover their cost-sharing requirements, the OIG report said. That means Part B coverage shielded many patients from high ustekinumab costs. 

In contrast, patients who self-administered the drug at home under Part D coverage paid an average of almost $6000 out of pocket if they did not receive any type of financial assistance, OIG said.

“From a financial standpoint, as long as you have Part B coinsurance, it would be much cheaper to get the drug in your doctor’s office than getting it through a pharmacy, unless you qualify for the low-income subsidy,” OIG Regional Inspector General David Tawes, who supervised the team that produced the report, told this news organization.

OIG has previously reported that post–point-of-sale rebates paid by manufacturers sometimes lower the costs incurred by Part D plans by a significant margin. But this was not the case with ustekinumab. Instead, OIG said the gap between initial and actual costs of ustekinumab was reduced by less than one third even with rebates. Rebate information is considered confidential.

“The whole negotiation structure is a complicated and not particularly transparent process,” Mr. Tawes said.
 

Backchannel Discounts, Top-Line Prices

The IRA is bringing some more transparency to the process through negotiations, said Mariana P. Socal, MD, associate professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. Patients who buy medicines that have been through the CMS negotiation process will be able to see if they are being charged correctly.

Dr. Socal noted that there’s something of a disconnect in discussions of Part D between how insurers and consumers view prices. 

For Part D plans, the list prices represent the beginning of negotiations. They get rebates from drugmakers’ list prices for medicines, which insurers say work to lower premium costs. 

“For plans, those prices are unrealistic. They are simply a sticker price. But for patients, for the Medicare beneficiaries, these prices are very real” because they are used to set copays, Dr. Socal said.

Dr. Dusetzina reported receiving funding from Arnold Ventures and the Commonwealth Fund for research related to drug pricing. Dr. Socal reported receiving funding from Arnold Ventures. 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A US government report showed how a Medicare policy change made the drug ustekinumab (Stelara) for autoimmune diseases much more expensive, a finding that experts say illustrates the need for reforms created by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA).

The topline findings of an August report from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) about ustekinumab may seem somewhat surprising and a bit counterintuitive.

Ustekinumab costs spiked as Medicare pushed patients to get their supply through the Part D pharmacy program. The aim of Part D is to make medicines more affordable and accessible for patients. It runs on a model of insurers to negotiate deals for pharmaceuticals.

Earlier, many patients who needed ustekinumab had the drug covered by Medicare Part B. For many years, Medicare Part B has been largely a passive purchaser of medicines. Part B covers drugs administered by physicians. Its longtime model has been to add a premium of 6% to the reported average sales price to reimburse physicians who buy and administer the drug for patients.

But it was Part D, the Medicare program based on insurers’ negotiating clout, that saw a spike in ustekinumab costs after patients were shifted out of Part B coverage, where the cost of the medicine fell.

The average reported Part B cost for an ustekinumab injection slipped from $14,450 in 2016 to $12,912 by 2023, according to the report from HHS’ Office of Inspector General (OIG).

The Part D cost jumped in the same period. It rose by 84% from $17,717 in 2016 to $32,559 by 2023.

The IRA is intended to curb these kinds of increases in the future for drugs covered by Medicare, said Stacie B. Dusetzina, PhD, professor of health policy at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee. The law demands companies pay rebates to Medicare if they increase drug prices faster than consumer inflation.

“That should at least help with some of this price growth that over time has seemed quite egregious,” Dr. Dusetzina told this news organization.

The IRA contains several provisions intended to curb rising drug costs for people enrolled in Medicare, including allowing the federal government to directly negotiate on some medicines.

Ustekinumab is one of the first 10 medicines that are subject to negotiations. Medicare will select as many as 15 additional drugs covered under Part D for negotiation in 2025, another 15 Part B and D drugs in 2026, and up to 20 drugs every year after that.

Earlier in August, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced the results of its first drug negotiations, with prices set to take effect in 2026. The Part D price for a 30-day supply of ustekinumab will be $4695 in 2026, a 66% reduction from the list price last year of $13,836.

Even at the negotiated price, ustekinumab’s cost will be high enough to trigger a new cap on out-of-pocket Part D spending, Dr. Dusetzina said.

Starting in 2025, Part D will have a cap of $2000 on individuals’ out-of-pocket costs, with annual adjustments in future years.

“It may not be better for someone who was filling this on Part B, who had a supplement [that covered their share of the ustekinumab cost], but it will be better for a lot of people that it’s covered under Part D,” Dr. Dusetzina said. “The good news is that at least from a beneficiary affordability standpoint, they’re going to have some price protection.”

OIG noted that the US Food and Drug Administration has approved three competing biosimilar versions of ustekinumab. These could also potentially work to lower costs.
 

‘A Complicated and Not Particularly Transparent Process’

OIG said it expects to release a report later this year with more detail about the decision that shifted ustekinumab coverage from Part B to Part D.

First cleared for US sales in 2009, ustekinumab is approved for psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis. It can be given subcutaneously or intravenously.

Part B does not generally cover self-administered drugs. The infused version of ustekinumab has been covered under Medicare Part B since it reached the market.

“However, Part B coverage of the subcutaneous versions has been less straightforward,” OIG said in the report.

In 2020, Medicare administrative contractors — the units or affiliates of insurers that for decades have processed Part B claims for the traditional Medicare programs — determined that subcutaneous ustekinumab did not meet the criteria for coverage under Part B. Implementation of this change was delayed due to the COVID public health emergency but has since taken effect.

The shift in ustekinumab coverage to Part D eroded financial protections of many people on Medicare when Part B covered the drug.

Almost 9 in 10 people enrolled in Medicare Part B have supplemental insurance such as Medigap, employer coverage, or Medicaid to fully or partially cover their cost-sharing requirements, the OIG report said. That means Part B coverage shielded many patients from high ustekinumab costs. 

In contrast, patients who self-administered the drug at home under Part D coverage paid an average of almost $6000 out of pocket if they did not receive any type of financial assistance, OIG said.

“From a financial standpoint, as long as you have Part B coinsurance, it would be much cheaper to get the drug in your doctor’s office than getting it through a pharmacy, unless you qualify for the low-income subsidy,” OIG Regional Inspector General David Tawes, who supervised the team that produced the report, told this news organization.

OIG has previously reported that post–point-of-sale rebates paid by manufacturers sometimes lower the costs incurred by Part D plans by a significant margin. But this was not the case with ustekinumab. Instead, OIG said the gap between initial and actual costs of ustekinumab was reduced by less than one third even with rebates. Rebate information is considered confidential.

“The whole negotiation structure is a complicated and not particularly transparent process,” Mr. Tawes said.
 

Backchannel Discounts, Top-Line Prices

The IRA is bringing some more transparency to the process through negotiations, said Mariana P. Socal, MD, associate professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. Patients who buy medicines that have been through the CMS negotiation process will be able to see if they are being charged correctly.

Dr. Socal noted that there’s something of a disconnect in discussions of Part D between how insurers and consumers view prices. 

For Part D plans, the list prices represent the beginning of negotiations. They get rebates from drugmakers’ list prices for medicines, which insurers say work to lower premium costs. 

“For plans, those prices are unrealistic. They are simply a sticker price. But for patients, for the Medicare beneficiaries, these prices are very real” because they are used to set copays, Dr. Socal said.

Dr. Dusetzina reported receiving funding from Arnold Ventures and the Commonwealth Fund for research related to drug pricing. Dr. Socal reported receiving funding from Arnold Ventures. 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Rising consolidation among pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) allows the companies to profit at the expense of patients and independent pharmacists. That’s the conclusion of a recent Federal Trade Commission (FTC) report on interim findings from the agency’s ongoing investigation of PBMs. 

Lawmakers are increasingly scrutinizing the industry amid growing concern among physicians and consumers about how PBMs exploit their market dominance. The top six PBMs managed 94% of US drug claims in 2023, with the majority handled by the industry’s three giants: CVS Caremark, Cigna’s Express Scripts, and United Healthcare’s OptumRx.

PBMs manage prescription drug benefits for health insurers, Medicare Part D drug plans, and large employers. They act as middlemen between health insurers and pharmacies, developing formularies of covered drugs and promising savings from the discounts and rebates they negotiate with drugmakers.

The FTC’s interim report found that the giant PBMs often exercise significant control over what drugs are available and at what price and which pharmacies patients can use to access their prescribed medications. Consumers suffer as a result, the report concluded.

Madelaine A. Feldman, MD, vice president for advocacy and government affairs for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations, shared her perspective on the FTC report in an email Q&A with this news organization. She is affiliated with The Rheumatology Group, based in Metairie, Louisiana. 

Dr. Feldman has long tracked the PBM industry and appeared as a witness before influential government panels, including the House Energy and Commerce Committee. She has highlighted for lawmakers the challenges physicians face in helping patients get needed medicines. 

For example, she shared cases of PBMs steering patients toward the more expensive of three widely used rheumatoid arthritis medicines that have a similar mechanism of action, the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, Dr. Feldman said. 

One of the drugs cost roughly half of the other two — about $30,000 per year vs $65,000-$70,000. Yet only the two expensive drugs were included in the PBM formulary. As a result, the cheapest drug holds only a sliver of market share; the remainder is dominated by the two expensive products, she told the House Oversight and Accountability Committee in 2021.

This Q&A has been edited for length and clarity.

What would you want federal and state policymakers to do in response to the FTC’s report?

I think Congress needs to clearly delineate the differences between anticompetitive pharmacy issues, drug pricing issues, and their effect on formulary construction issues.

Lawmakers should demand more transparency and consider legislation that would remove perverse incentives that prompt PBMs to choose higher priced drugs for their formularies. 

That may require other regulatory or legislative actions to ensure lower prices (not higher kickbacks) are incentivized. Ultimately, in order to gain true competition within the health insurance business, these oligopolies of multiple businesses need to be broken up. Anything less seems to be nibbling around the edges and allows the Big Three to continue their “whack-a mole” in circumventing piecemeal regulatory and legislative policies.

You’ve followed PBM practices closely for many years. Was there anything in this interim FTC report that surprised you?

Though not surprised, I am glad that it was released because it had been a year in investigation and there were many requests for some type of substantive report. 

Two things that are missing that I feel are paramount are investigating how the three big PBMs are causing physical harm to patients as a result of the profit component in formulary construction and the profound financial impact of hidden PBM profit centers in self-insured employer health plans.

What we have seen over the years is the result of the perverse incentives for the PBMs to prefer the most profitable medications on their formularies. 

They use utilization management tools such as step therapy, nonmedical switching, and exclusions to maintain their formularies’ profitability. These tools have been shown to delay and deny the proper care of patients, resulting in not just monetary but physical harm as well. 

I would think the physical harm done to patients in manipulating the formularies should be addressed in this report as well and, in fact, may be the most important aspect of consumer protection of this issue.

In terms of the FTC’s mission to not “unduly burden” legitimate business, I would like to see the sector of self-insured employers addressed. 

The report details how PBMs steer prescriptions to their affiliated pharmacies. The FTC says that can push smaller pharmacies out of the market, ultimately leading to higher costs and lower quality services for people. What’s your perspective? 

Having more community pharmacies is better than having less. We are seeing more “pharmacy deserts” in rural areas as a result of many community pharmacies having to close.

The FTC voted 4-1 to allow staff to issue the interim report, with Commissioner Melissa Holyoak voting no. And some FTC commissioners seem divided on the usefulness of the report. Why?

Commissioner Holyoak states the “the Report leaves us without a better understanding of the competition concerns surrounding PBMs or how consumers are impacted by PBM practices.” 

I do agree with her that the harm to patients’ medical status was not even addressed as far as I could tell in this report. There are multiple news articles and reports on the harms inflicted upon patients by the UM tools that drive the construction of ever changing formularies, all based on contracting with manufacturers that result in the highest profit for the PBM.

Holyoak also states, “Among other critical conclusions, the Report does not address the seemingly contradictory conclusions in the 2005 Report that PBMs, including vertically owned PBMs, generated cost savings for consumers.” 

That may be true, but in 2005, the rise of PBMs was just beginning and the huge vertical and horizontal integration had yet to begin. Also, 2005 was still in the beginning of the biologic drug deluge, which did create competition to get on the formulary. Since then, PBMs have done nothing to control the rise in prices but instead, apparently have used the competition to get higher price concessions from manufacturers based on a percentage of the list price to line their pockets.

Commissioner Ferguson agreed with releasing the report but he had many issues with this report including the lack of PBM response. 

I do agree with him that the FTC should have used some type of “force” to get the information they needed from the PBMs. The Big Three are known for obfuscation and delaying providing information to legislative and regulatory agencies.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rising consolidation among pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) allows the companies to profit at the expense of patients and independent pharmacists. That’s the conclusion of a recent Federal Trade Commission (FTC) report on interim findings from the agency’s ongoing investigation of PBMs. 

Lawmakers are increasingly scrutinizing the industry amid growing concern among physicians and consumers about how PBMs exploit their market dominance. The top six PBMs managed 94% of US drug claims in 2023, with the majority handled by the industry’s three giants: CVS Caremark, Cigna’s Express Scripts, and United Healthcare’s OptumRx.

PBMs manage prescription drug benefits for health insurers, Medicare Part D drug plans, and large employers. They act as middlemen between health insurers and pharmacies, developing formularies of covered drugs and promising savings from the discounts and rebates they negotiate with drugmakers.

The FTC’s interim report found that the giant PBMs often exercise significant control over what drugs are available and at what price and which pharmacies patients can use to access their prescribed medications. Consumers suffer as a result, the report concluded.

Madelaine A. Feldman, MD, vice president for advocacy and government affairs for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations, shared her perspective on the FTC report in an email Q&A with this news organization. She is affiliated with The Rheumatology Group, based in Metairie, Louisiana. 

Dr. Feldman has long tracked the PBM industry and appeared as a witness before influential government panels, including the House Energy and Commerce Committee. She has highlighted for lawmakers the challenges physicians face in helping patients get needed medicines. 

For example, she shared cases of PBMs steering patients toward the more expensive of three widely used rheumatoid arthritis medicines that have a similar mechanism of action, the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, Dr. Feldman said. 

One of the drugs cost roughly half of the other two — about $30,000 per year vs $65,000-$70,000. Yet only the two expensive drugs were included in the PBM formulary. As a result, the cheapest drug holds only a sliver of market share; the remainder is dominated by the two expensive products, she told the House Oversight and Accountability Committee in 2021.

This Q&A has been edited for length and clarity.

What would you want federal and state policymakers to do in response to the FTC’s report?

I think Congress needs to clearly delineate the differences between anticompetitive pharmacy issues, drug pricing issues, and their effect on formulary construction issues.

Lawmakers should demand more transparency and consider legislation that would remove perverse incentives that prompt PBMs to choose higher priced drugs for their formularies. 

That may require other regulatory or legislative actions to ensure lower prices (not higher kickbacks) are incentivized. Ultimately, in order to gain true competition within the health insurance business, these oligopolies of multiple businesses need to be broken up. Anything less seems to be nibbling around the edges and allows the Big Three to continue their “whack-a mole” in circumventing piecemeal regulatory and legislative policies.

You’ve followed PBM practices closely for many years. Was there anything in this interim FTC report that surprised you?

Though not surprised, I am glad that it was released because it had been a year in investigation and there were many requests for some type of substantive report. 

Two things that are missing that I feel are paramount are investigating how the three big PBMs are causing physical harm to patients as a result of the profit component in formulary construction and the profound financial impact of hidden PBM profit centers in self-insured employer health plans.

What we have seen over the years is the result of the perverse incentives for the PBMs to prefer the most profitable medications on their formularies. 

They use utilization management tools such as step therapy, nonmedical switching, and exclusions to maintain their formularies’ profitability. These tools have been shown to delay and deny the proper care of patients, resulting in not just monetary but physical harm as well. 

I would think the physical harm done to patients in manipulating the formularies should be addressed in this report as well and, in fact, may be the most important aspect of consumer protection of this issue.

In terms of the FTC’s mission to not “unduly burden” legitimate business, I would like to see the sector of self-insured employers addressed. 

The report details how PBMs steer prescriptions to their affiliated pharmacies. The FTC says that can push smaller pharmacies out of the market, ultimately leading to higher costs and lower quality services for people. What’s your perspective? 

Having more community pharmacies is better than having less. We are seeing more “pharmacy deserts” in rural areas as a result of many community pharmacies having to close.

The FTC voted 4-1 to allow staff to issue the interim report, with Commissioner Melissa Holyoak voting no. And some FTC commissioners seem divided on the usefulness of the report. Why?

Commissioner Holyoak states the “the Report leaves us without a better understanding of the competition concerns surrounding PBMs or how consumers are impacted by PBM practices.” 

I do agree with her that the harm to patients’ medical status was not even addressed as far as I could tell in this report. There are multiple news articles and reports on the harms inflicted upon patients by the UM tools that drive the construction of ever changing formularies, all based on contracting with manufacturers that result in the highest profit for the PBM.

Holyoak also states, “Among other critical conclusions, the Report does not address the seemingly contradictory conclusions in the 2005 Report that PBMs, including vertically owned PBMs, generated cost savings for consumers.” 

That may be true, but in 2005, the rise of PBMs was just beginning and the huge vertical and horizontal integration had yet to begin. Also, 2005 was still in the beginning of the biologic drug deluge, which did create competition to get on the formulary. Since then, PBMs have done nothing to control the rise in prices but instead, apparently have used the competition to get higher price concessions from manufacturers based on a percentage of the list price to line their pockets.

Commissioner Ferguson agreed with releasing the report but he had many issues with this report including the lack of PBM response. 

I do agree with him that the FTC should have used some type of “force” to get the information they needed from the PBMs. The Big Three are known for obfuscation and delaying providing information to legislative and regulatory agencies.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Rising consolidation among pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) allows the companies to profit at the expense of patients and independent pharmacists. That’s the conclusion of a recent Federal Trade Commission (FTC) report on interim findings from the agency’s ongoing investigation of PBMs. 

Lawmakers are increasingly scrutinizing the industry amid growing concern among physicians and consumers about how PBMs exploit their market dominance. The top six PBMs managed 94% of US drug claims in 2023, with the majority handled by the industry’s three giants: CVS Caremark, Cigna’s Express Scripts, and United Healthcare’s OptumRx.

PBMs manage prescription drug benefits for health insurers, Medicare Part D drug plans, and large employers. They act as middlemen between health insurers and pharmacies, developing formularies of covered drugs and promising savings from the discounts and rebates they negotiate with drugmakers.

The FTC’s interim report found that the giant PBMs often exercise significant control over what drugs are available and at what price and which pharmacies patients can use to access their prescribed medications. Consumers suffer as a result, the report concluded.

Madelaine A. Feldman, MD, vice president for advocacy and government affairs for the Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations, shared her perspective on the FTC report in an email Q&A with this news organization. She is affiliated with The Rheumatology Group, based in Metairie, Louisiana. 

Dr. Feldman has long tracked the PBM industry and appeared as a witness before influential government panels, including the House Energy and Commerce Committee. She has highlighted for lawmakers the challenges physicians face in helping patients get needed medicines. 

For example, she shared cases of PBMs steering patients toward the more expensive of three widely used rheumatoid arthritis medicines that have a similar mechanism of action, the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, Dr. Feldman said. 

One of the drugs cost roughly half of the other two — about $30,000 per year vs $65,000-$70,000. Yet only the two expensive drugs were included in the PBM formulary. As a result, the cheapest drug holds only a sliver of market share; the remainder is dominated by the two expensive products, she told the House Oversight and Accountability Committee in 2021.

This Q&A has been edited for length and clarity.

What would you want federal and state policymakers to do in response to the FTC’s report?

I think Congress needs to clearly delineate the differences between anticompetitive pharmacy issues, drug pricing issues, and their effect on formulary construction issues.

Lawmakers should demand more transparency and consider legislation that would remove perverse incentives that prompt PBMs to choose higher priced drugs for their formularies. 

That may require other regulatory or legislative actions to ensure lower prices (not higher kickbacks) are incentivized. Ultimately, in order to gain true competition within the health insurance business, these oligopolies of multiple businesses need to be broken up. Anything less seems to be nibbling around the edges and allows the Big Three to continue their “whack-a mole” in circumventing piecemeal regulatory and legislative policies.

You’ve followed PBM practices closely for many years. Was there anything in this interim FTC report that surprised you?

Though not surprised, I am glad that it was released because it had been a year in investigation and there were many requests for some type of substantive report. 

Two things that are missing that I feel are paramount are investigating how the three big PBMs are causing physical harm to patients as a result of the profit component in formulary construction and the profound financial impact of hidden PBM profit centers in self-insured employer health plans.

What we have seen over the years is the result of the perverse incentives for the PBMs to prefer the most profitable medications on their formularies. 

They use utilization management tools such as step therapy, nonmedical switching, and exclusions to maintain their formularies’ profitability. These tools have been shown to delay and deny the proper care of patients, resulting in not just monetary but physical harm as well. 

I would think the physical harm done to patients in manipulating the formularies should be addressed in this report as well and, in fact, may be the most important aspect of consumer protection of this issue.

In terms of the FTC’s mission to not “unduly burden” legitimate business, I would like to see the sector of self-insured employers addressed. 

The report details how PBMs steer prescriptions to their affiliated pharmacies. The FTC says that can push smaller pharmacies out of the market, ultimately leading to higher costs and lower quality services for people. What’s your perspective? 

Having more community pharmacies is better than having less. We are seeing more “pharmacy deserts” in rural areas as a result of many community pharmacies having to close.

The FTC voted 4-1 to allow staff to issue the interim report, with Commissioner Melissa Holyoak voting no. And some FTC commissioners seem divided on the usefulness of the report. Why?

Commissioner Holyoak states the “the Report leaves us without a better understanding of the competition concerns surrounding PBMs or how consumers are impacted by PBM practices.” 

I do agree with her that the harm to patients’ medical status was not even addressed as far as I could tell in this report. There are multiple news articles and reports on the harms inflicted upon patients by the UM tools that drive the construction of ever changing formularies, all based on contracting with manufacturers that result in the highest profit for the PBM.

Holyoak also states, “Among other critical conclusions, the Report does not address the seemingly contradictory conclusions in the 2005 Report that PBMs, including vertically owned PBMs, generated cost savings for consumers.” 

That may be true, but in 2005, the rise of PBMs was just beginning and the huge vertical and horizontal integration had yet to begin. Also, 2005 was still in the beginning of the biologic drug deluge, which did create competition to get on the formulary. Since then, PBMs have done nothing to control the rise in prices but instead, apparently have used the competition to get higher price concessions from manufacturers based on a percentage of the list price to line their pockets.

Commissioner Ferguson agreed with releasing the report but he had many issues with this report including the lack of PBM response. 

I do agree with him that the FTC should have used some type of “force” to get the information they needed from the PBMs. The Big Three are known for obfuscation and delaying providing information to legislative and regulatory agencies.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Federal officials intend to compel US hospitals to improve obstetrical services, with a plan that could result in a potential loss of Medicare and Medicaid funds for institutions that fail to comply with the demands.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) on July 10 announced this proposal, tucking its plan for new conditions of participation (COP) for obstetrician services into the draft 2025 rule on Medicare payments for outpatient hospital services.

The COP requirements are considered the most powerful tool CMS has for trying to improve the quality of medical care. With the new obstetric COP requirement, CMS said it intends to address what it sees as potential shortfalls in training, staffing, transfer protocols, and emergency services readiness.

In practice, hospitals, CMS, and accrediting bodies such as the Joint Commission usually try to address deficiencies to prevent what would be a devastating financial loss for a hospital.

“CMS is using all of our tools to improve the safety, quality, and timeliness of the care that hospitals provide to pregnant women,” Dora Hughes, MD, MPH, acting chief medical officer of the agency, said in a press release about the proposal.

CMS estimated the proposal may add new annual expenses of $70,671 per hospital. For comparison, this figure would represent far less than 1% of the total $1.4 trillion spent on hospital care in the United States in 2022.

CMS said it is trying to address the reasons women in the United States face more risk in giving birth than those in other nations. There were 22 maternal deaths for every 100,000 live births in this country in 2022, compared with 8.6 deaths per 100,000 live births or lower that year in Canada, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan, CMS said.

But CMS is seeking to impose this new requirement at a time amid growing concerns about “maternity care deserts.”
 

Reasonable Asks?

Between 2011 and 2021, one out of every four rural hospitals in America stopped providing obstetrics services, Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said at a May hearing. Mr. Wyden last year was part of a fight to try to prevent the closure of a birthing center in Baker City in rural eastern Oregon.

The federal government should focus first on helping hospitals keep obstetrical facilities open, said Elizabeth Powers, MD, MHA, the health services officer of the Winding Waters Clinic in Enterprise, Oregon.

“Until we can ensure access to services, we can’t even work on quality,” Dr. Powers told this news organization. “If you’re thinking about a Maslow’s hierarchy of achieving health outcomes, access is your foundation, and without a shift in payment, that foundation is eroded.”

In the draft rule, CMS sketched broad mandates about staffing and training. For example, the agency proposes requiring if a hospital offers obstetrical services, “the services must be well organized and provided in accordance with nationally recognized acceptable standards of practice.”

That means CMS likely will need to provide further guidance for hospitals if it proceeds with this plan for obstetric COP requirements, said Soumi Saha, PharmD, JD, senior vice president of government affairs at Premier Inc., a healthcare consultancy and purchasing organization.

Premier is among the many groups, including the American Hospital Association, that oppose the COP proposal.

Dr. Saha said a better approach would be to consolidate the work being done through the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), including earlier CMS projects, to address maternal health in a cohesive way. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has programs, as does the HHS Office on Women’s Health.

“How do we really get to a holistic, national, unified approach to addressing this issue that is led by HHS at the top level as the top agency and trickles down consistently versus having all of these kinds of disparate programs in place?” she said.

In recent years, the federal and state governments have taken many steps to try to improve maternal healthcare.

These include the extension of Medicaid benefits to new mothers out to 12 months following delivery in most states. CMS also has encouraged hospitals to participate in voluntary statewide or national programs to improve the quality of perinatal care. Last year the agency launched a “Birthing-Friendly” designation icon for qualifying hospitals on its Care Compare online tool.
 

Support and Opposition

CMS is accepting comments on the draft 2025 hospital outpatient rule, which includes the obstetric COP proposal, through September 9.

Supporters of the obstetric COP approach included the American Nurses Association (ANA), which urged CMS to consider how staffing shortages can undermine patient care in creating COP requirements.

“Nurses are professionals providing critical healthcare services to patients; they should not have to fight for allotted breaks and other challenges created by antiquated views of the profession and payment policies that disincentivize adequate nurse staffing,” Debbie Hatmaker, PhD, RN, ANA’s chief nursing officer, wrote in a June 7 comment to CMS.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) also objected to the prospect of new COP for maternal healthcare. They detailed their concerns in separate comments submitted in June 2024.

ACOG said it feared many hospitals might opt to close labor and delivery (L&D) units due to new CMS COP requirements, especially if these take effect “without important and direct stakeholder engagement and buy-in.” More than 200 rural hospitals across the United States stopped providing L&D services in the last decade, Christopher M. Zahn, MD, ACOG’s interim chief executive officer, wrote in a comment to CMS.

“The reason for these closures is varied. Many rural hospitals that still have L&D units continue to lose money on patient services overall, and their ability to continue to deliver maternity care is at risk,” Dr. Zahn wrote.

The AAMC urged CMS to focus on using other strategies such as quality measures to try to improve maternal health and to drop the COP approach. CMS must consider how many clinicians play a role in successful births, including those who see patients during their pregnancies, Jonathan Jaffery, MD, MS, AAMC’s chief healthcare officer, wrote in a comment to the agency.

“Hospitals do have a critical role in improving maternal healthcare equity, especially for labor and delivery outcomes,” he wrote, “but cannot be held solely responsible for implementing much-needed improvements and solutions.”
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Federal officials intend to compel US hospitals to improve obstetrical services, with a plan that could result in a potential loss of Medicare and Medicaid funds for institutions that fail to comply with the demands.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) on July 10 announced this proposal, tucking its plan for new conditions of participation (COP) for obstetrician services into the draft 2025 rule on Medicare payments for outpatient hospital services.

The COP requirements are considered the most powerful tool CMS has for trying to improve the quality of medical care. With the new obstetric COP requirement, CMS said it intends to address what it sees as potential shortfalls in training, staffing, transfer protocols, and emergency services readiness.

In practice, hospitals, CMS, and accrediting bodies such as the Joint Commission usually try to address deficiencies to prevent what would be a devastating financial loss for a hospital.

“CMS is using all of our tools to improve the safety, quality, and timeliness of the care that hospitals provide to pregnant women,” Dora Hughes, MD, MPH, acting chief medical officer of the agency, said in a press release about the proposal.

CMS estimated the proposal may add new annual expenses of $70,671 per hospital. For comparison, this figure would represent far less than 1% of the total $1.4 trillion spent on hospital care in the United States in 2022.

CMS said it is trying to address the reasons women in the United States face more risk in giving birth than those in other nations. There were 22 maternal deaths for every 100,000 live births in this country in 2022, compared with 8.6 deaths per 100,000 live births or lower that year in Canada, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan, CMS said.

But CMS is seeking to impose this new requirement at a time amid growing concerns about “maternity care deserts.”
 

Reasonable Asks?

Between 2011 and 2021, one out of every four rural hospitals in America stopped providing obstetrics services, Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said at a May hearing. Mr. Wyden last year was part of a fight to try to prevent the closure of a birthing center in Baker City in rural eastern Oregon.

The federal government should focus first on helping hospitals keep obstetrical facilities open, said Elizabeth Powers, MD, MHA, the health services officer of the Winding Waters Clinic in Enterprise, Oregon.

“Until we can ensure access to services, we can’t even work on quality,” Dr. Powers told this news organization. “If you’re thinking about a Maslow’s hierarchy of achieving health outcomes, access is your foundation, and without a shift in payment, that foundation is eroded.”

In the draft rule, CMS sketched broad mandates about staffing and training. For example, the agency proposes requiring if a hospital offers obstetrical services, “the services must be well organized and provided in accordance with nationally recognized acceptable standards of practice.”

That means CMS likely will need to provide further guidance for hospitals if it proceeds with this plan for obstetric COP requirements, said Soumi Saha, PharmD, JD, senior vice president of government affairs at Premier Inc., a healthcare consultancy and purchasing organization.

Premier is among the many groups, including the American Hospital Association, that oppose the COP proposal.

Dr. Saha said a better approach would be to consolidate the work being done through the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), including earlier CMS projects, to address maternal health in a cohesive way. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has programs, as does the HHS Office on Women’s Health.

“How do we really get to a holistic, national, unified approach to addressing this issue that is led by HHS at the top level as the top agency and trickles down consistently versus having all of these kinds of disparate programs in place?” she said.

In recent years, the federal and state governments have taken many steps to try to improve maternal healthcare.

These include the extension of Medicaid benefits to new mothers out to 12 months following delivery in most states. CMS also has encouraged hospitals to participate in voluntary statewide or national programs to improve the quality of perinatal care. Last year the agency launched a “Birthing-Friendly” designation icon for qualifying hospitals on its Care Compare online tool.
 

Support and Opposition

CMS is accepting comments on the draft 2025 hospital outpatient rule, which includes the obstetric COP proposal, through September 9.

Supporters of the obstetric COP approach included the American Nurses Association (ANA), which urged CMS to consider how staffing shortages can undermine patient care in creating COP requirements.

“Nurses are professionals providing critical healthcare services to patients; they should not have to fight for allotted breaks and other challenges created by antiquated views of the profession and payment policies that disincentivize adequate nurse staffing,” Debbie Hatmaker, PhD, RN, ANA’s chief nursing officer, wrote in a June 7 comment to CMS.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) also objected to the prospect of new COP for maternal healthcare. They detailed their concerns in separate comments submitted in June 2024.

ACOG said it feared many hospitals might opt to close labor and delivery (L&D) units due to new CMS COP requirements, especially if these take effect “without important and direct stakeholder engagement and buy-in.” More than 200 rural hospitals across the United States stopped providing L&D services in the last decade, Christopher M. Zahn, MD, ACOG’s interim chief executive officer, wrote in a comment to CMS.

“The reason for these closures is varied. Many rural hospitals that still have L&D units continue to lose money on patient services overall, and their ability to continue to deliver maternity care is at risk,” Dr. Zahn wrote.

The AAMC urged CMS to focus on using other strategies such as quality measures to try to improve maternal health and to drop the COP approach. CMS must consider how many clinicians play a role in successful births, including those who see patients during their pregnancies, Jonathan Jaffery, MD, MS, AAMC’s chief healthcare officer, wrote in a comment to the agency.

“Hospitals do have a critical role in improving maternal healthcare equity, especially for labor and delivery outcomes,” he wrote, “but cannot be held solely responsible for implementing much-needed improvements and solutions.”
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Federal officials intend to compel US hospitals to improve obstetrical services, with a plan that could result in a potential loss of Medicare and Medicaid funds for institutions that fail to comply with the demands.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) on July 10 announced this proposal, tucking its plan for new conditions of participation (COP) for obstetrician services into the draft 2025 rule on Medicare payments for outpatient hospital services.

The COP requirements are considered the most powerful tool CMS has for trying to improve the quality of medical care. With the new obstetric COP requirement, CMS said it intends to address what it sees as potential shortfalls in training, staffing, transfer protocols, and emergency services readiness.

In practice, hospitals, CMS, and accrediting bodies such as the Joint Commission usually try to address deficiencies to prevent what would be a devastating financial loss for a hospital.

“CMS is using all of our tools to improve the safety, quality, and timeliness of the care that hospitals provide to pregnant women,” Dora Hughes, MD, MPH, acting chief medical officer of the agency, said in a press release about the proposal.

CMS estimated the proposal may add new annual expenses of $70,671 per hospital. For comparison, this figure would represent far less than 1% of the total $1.4 trillion spent on hospital care in the United States in 2022.

CMS said it is trying to address the reasons women in the United States face more risk in giving birth than those in other nations. There were 22 maternal deaths for every 100,000 live births in this country in 2022, compared with 8.6 deaths per 100,000 live births or lower that year in Canada, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan, CMS said.

But CMS is seeking to impose this new requirement at a time amid growing concerns about “maternity care deserts.”
 

Reasonable Asks?

Between 2011 and 2021, one out of every four rural hospitals in America stopped providing obstetrics services, Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said at a May hearing. Mr. Wyden last year was part of a fight to try to prevent the closure of a birthing center in Baker City in rural eastern Oregon.

The federal government should focus first on helping hospitals keep obstetrical facilities open, said Elizabeth Powers, MD, MHA, the health services officer of the Winding Waters Clinic in Enterprise, Oregon.

“Until we can ensure access to services, we can’t even work on quality,” Dr. Powers told this news organization. “If you’re thinking about a Maslow’s hierarchy of achieving health outcomes, access is your foundation, and without a shift in payment, that foundation is eroded.”

In the draft rule, CMS sketched broad mandates about staffing and training. For example, the agency proposes requiring if a hospital offers obstetrical services, “the services must be well organized and provided in accordance with nationally recognized acceptable standards of practice.”

That means CMS likely will need to provide further guidance for hospitals if it proceeds with this plan for obstetric COP requirements, said Soumi Saha, PharmD, JD, senior vice president of government affairs at Premier Inc., a healthcare consultancy and purchasing organization.

Premier is among the many groups, including the American Hospital Association, that oppose the COP proposal.

Dr. Saha said a better approach would be to consolidate the work being done through the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), including earlier CMS projects, to address maternal health in a cohesive way. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has programs, as does the HHS Office on Women’s Health.

“How do we really get to a holistic, national, unified approach to addressing this issue that is led by HHS at the top level as the top agency and trickles down consistently versus having all of these kinds of disparate programs in place?” she said.

In recent years, the federal and state governments have taken many steps to try to improve maternal healthcare.

These include the extension of Medicaid benefits to new mothers out to 12 months following delivery in most states. CMS also has encouraged hospitals to participate in voluntary statewide or national programs to improve the quality of perinatal care. Last year the agency launched a “Birthing-Friendly” designation icon for qualifying hospitals on its Care Compare online tool.
 

Support and Opposition

CMS is accepting comments on the draft 2025 hospital outpatient rule, which includes the obstetric COP proposal, through September 9.

Supporters of the obstetric COP approach included the American Nurses Association (ANA), which urged CMS to consider how staffing shortages can undermine patient care in creating COP requirements.

“Nurses are professionals providing critical healthcare services to patients; they should not have to fight for allotted breaks and other challenges created by antiquated views of the profession and payment policies that disincentivize adequate nurse staffing,” Debbie Hatmaker, PhD, RN, ANA’s chief nursing officer, wrote in a June 7 comment to CMS.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) also objected to the prospect of new COP for maternal healthcare. They detailed their concerns in separate comments submitted in June 2024.

ACOG said it feared many hospitals might opt to close labor and delivery (L&D) units due to new CMS COP requirements, especially if these take effect “without important and direct stakeholder engagement and buy-in.” More than 200 rural hospitals across the United States stopped providing L&D services in the last decade, Christopher M. Zahn, MD, ACOG’s interim chief executive officer, wrote in a comment to CMS.

“The reason for these closures is varied. Many rural hospitals that still have L&D units continue to lose money on patient services overall, and their ability to continue to deliver maternity care is at risk,” Dr. Zahn wrote.

The AAMC urged CMS to focus on using other strategies such as quality measures to try to improve maternal health and to drop the COP approach. CMS must consider how many clinicians play a role in successful births, including those who see patients during their pregnancies, Jonathan Jaffery, MD, MS, AAMC’s chief healthcare officer, wrote in a comment to the agency.

“Hospitals do have a critical role in improving maternal healthcare equity, especially for labor and delivery outcomes,” he wrote, “but cannot be held solely responsible for implementing much-needed improvements and solutions.”
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Federal officials on July 11 proposed Medicare rates that effectively would cut physician pay by about 3% in 2025, touching off a fresh round of protests from medical associations.

The 2025 draft base rate, or conversion factor, is slated to drop to $32.36 from the current level of $33.29, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said.

The American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and other groups on July 10 reiterated calls on Congress to revise the law on Medicare payment for physicians and move away from short-term tweaks.

This proposed cut is mostly due to the 5-year freeze in the physician schedule base rate mandated by the 2015 Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). Congress designed MACRA with an aim of shifting clinicians toward programs that would peg pay increases to quality measures.

Lawmakers have since had to soften the blow of that freeze, acknowledging flaws in MACRA and inflation’s significant toll on medical practices. Yet lawmakers have made temporary fixes, such as a 2.93% increase in current payment that’s set to expire.

“Previous quick fixes have been insufficient — this situation requires a bold, substantial approach,” Bruce A. Scott, MD, the AMA president, said in a statement. “A Band-Aid goes only so far when the patient is in dire need.”

Dr. Scott noted that the Medicare Economic Index — a measure of practice cost inflation — is expected to rise by 3.6% in 2025.

“As a first step, Congress must enact an annual inflationary update to help physician payment rates keep pace with rising practice costs,” Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president, said in a statement released July 10. “Any payment reductions will threaten practices and exacerbate workforce shortages, preventing patients from accessing the primary care, behavioral health care, and other critical preventive services they need.”

Many medical groups, including the AMA, AAFP, and the Medical Group Management Association, are pressing Congress to pass a law that would tie the conversion factor of the physician fee schedule to inflation.

Influential advisory groups also have backed the idea of increasing the conversion factor. For example, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission in March recommended to Congress that it increase the 2025 conversion factor, suggesting a bump of half of the projected increase in the Medicare Economic Index.

Congress seems unlikely to revamp the physician fee schedule this year, with members spending significant time away from Washington ahead of the November election.

That could make it likely that Congress’ next action on Medicare payment rates would be another short-term tweak — instead of long-lasting change.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Federal officials on July 11 proposed Medicare rates that effectively would cut physician pay by about 3% in 2025, touching off a fresh round of protests from medical associations.

The 2025 draft base rate, or conversion factor, is slated to drop to $32.36 from the current level of $33.29, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said.

The American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and other groups on July 10 reiterated calls on Congress to revise the law on Medicare payment for physicians and move away from short-term tweaks.

This proposed cut is mostly due to the 5-year freeze in the physician schedule base rate mandated by the 2015 Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). Congress designed MACRA with an aim of shifting clinicians toward programs that would peg pay increases to quality measures.

Lawmakers have since had to soften the blow of that freeze, acknowledging flaws in MACRA and inflation’s significant toll on medical practices. Yet lawmakers have made temporary fixes, such as a 2.93% increase in current payment that’s set to expire.

“Previous quick fixes have been insufficient — this situation requires a bold, substantial approach,” Bruce A. Scott, MD, the AMA president, said in a statement. “A Band-Aid goes only so far when the patient is in dire need.”

Dr. Scott noted that the Medicare Economic Index — a measure of practice cost inflation — is expected to rise by 3.6% in 2025.

“As a first step, Congress must enact an annual inflationary update to help physician payment rates keep pace with rising practice costs,” Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president, said in a statement released July 10. “Any payment reductions will threaten practices and exacerbate workforce shortages, preventing patients from accessing the primary care, behavioral health care, and other critical preventive services they need.”

Many medical groups, including the AMA, AAFP, and the Medical Group Management Association, are pressing Congress to pass a law that would tie the conversion factor of the physician fee schedule to inflation.

Influential advisory groups also have backed the idea of increasing the conversion factor. For example, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission in March recommended to Congress that it increase the 2025 conversion factor, suggesting a bump of half of the projected increase in the Medicare Economic Index.

Congress seems unlikely to revamp the physician fee schedule this year, with members spending significant time away from Washington ahead of the November election.

That could make it likely that Congress’ next action on Medicare payment rates would be another short-term tweak — instead of long-lasting change.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Federal officials on July 11 proposed Medicare rates that effectively would cut physician pay by about 3% in 2025, touching off a fresh round of protests from medical associations.

The 2025 draft base rate, or conversion factor, is slated to drop to $32.36 from the current level of $33.29, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said.

The American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and other groups on July 10 reiterated calls on Congress to revise the law on Medicare payment for physicians and move away from short-term tweaks.

This proposed cut is mostly due to the 5-year freeze in the physician schedule base rate mandated by the 2015 Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). Congress designed MACRA with an aim of shifting clinicians toward programs that would peg pay increases to quality measures.

Lawmakers have since had to soften the blow of that freeze, acknowledging flaws in MACRA and inflation’s significant toll on medical practices. Yet lawmakers have made temporary fixes, such as a 2.93% increase in current payment that’s set to expire.

“Previous quick fixes have been insufficient — this situation requires a bold, substantial approach,” Bruce A. Scott, MD, the AMA president, said in a statement. “A Band-Aid goes only so far when the patient is in dire need.”

Dr. Scott noted that the Medicare Economic Index — a measure of practice cost inflation — is expected to rise by 3.6% in 2025.

“As a first step, Congress must enact an annual inflationary update to help physician payment rates keep pace with rising practice costs,” Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president, said in a statement released July 10. “Any payment reductions will threaten practices and exacerbate workforce shortages, preventing patients from accessing the primary care, behavioral health care, and other critical preventive services they need.”

Many medical groups, including the AMA, AAFP, and the Medical Group Management Association, are pressing Congress to pass a law that would tie the conversion factor of the physician fee schedule to inflation.

Influential advisory groups also have backed the idea of increasing the conversion factor. For example, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission in March recommended to Congress that it increase the 2025 conversion factor, suggesting a bump of half of the projected increase in the Medicare Economic Index.

Congress seems unlikely to revamp the physician fee schedule this year, with members spending significant time away from Washington ahead of the November election.

That could make it likely that Congress’ next action on Medicare payment rates would be another short-term tweak — instead of long-lasting change.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO, FLORIDA — An analysis of data from 137 patients suggested testing whether people have a trait known as abnormal postprandial satiety (APS), or hungry gut, can predict how well they may respond to the obesity drug semaglutide, although it failed to establish this link for the somewhat similar tirzepatide.

At the American Diabetes Association (ADA) Scientific Sessions, Maria Daniela Hurtado Andrade, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, presented results of a study using the MyPhenome Hungry Gut test, which was developed through machine learning, a form of artificial intelligence. 

The test is part of the MyPhenome obesity phenotyping portfolio from Phenomix Sciences, a company founded by Mayo Clinic physicians, scientists, and researchers Andres Acosta, MD, PhD, and Michael Camilleri, MD, DSc. 

At the ADA meeting, Dr. Hurtado Andrade discussed a test of 137 adults: 91 were considered to have a positive biomarker for abnormal postprandial satiety (APS+), and 46 who did not have it were classified as APS−. These were patients of the Mayo Clinic who were already taking obesity drugs and agreed to phenotyping. Of this group, 113 were on semaglutide and 24 on tirzepatide.

At 12 months, among those taking semaglutide, patients classified as APS+ achieved a mean 18% body weight loss compared with 10% in those classified as APS−. But the test didn’t find these kinds of differences for the tirzepatide group, with a mean 19.4% body weight loss in the APS+ group and a mean loss of 22.1% in the APS− group.

Further studies are warranted to assess the clinical utility of these biomarkers, Dr. Hurtado Andrade said. But these findings do support “the use of precision medicine for obesity based on an individual’s genetic background,” she said.

Dr. Hurtado Andrade’s presentation impressed fellow researchers who noted it as an early step toward the long-sought goal of more personalized medicine.

Daniel S. Hsia, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, who led the ADA session at which Dr. Hurtado Andrade presented, said it was good to see new information being presented about using genetic risk scoring in obesity.

“The numbers were very small for the tirzepatide group as compared to the semaglutide group, so it’s a little hard to really come to any significant conclusions,” Dr. Hsia said in an interview.

At the ADA meeting, Ajay D. Rao, MD, MMSc, of Temple University, Philadelphia, said clinicians are excited about the idea of having biomarkers to aid in decisions about approaches to obesity.

In a follow-up interview with this news organization, Dr. Rao said he too is looking to see more testing of this approach to care, while describing Hurtado Andrade’s work as a “very well-done study.”

“We still need to see more large-scale studies of responsiveness to certain interventions,” he said. 

Dr. Hurtado Andrade noted that researchers at academic centers such as Mayo can try to hone in the combination of genetic and other factors that led to obesity, such as emotional eating patterns and abnormal postprandial satiety. 

But this approach is not widely scalable, as it demands resources of time and staffing that not all clinicians and patients enjoy.

“To overcome this challenge, our team has been working on developing biomarkers” such as the machine-learning gene risk score used to predict abnormal postprandial satiety, she said.

Findings for a related project were presented in May at Digestive Disease Week, as this news organization reported earlier. In that study, researchers calculated the genetic risk score for 84 adults undergoing weight loss interventions at Mayo Clinic who were prescribed the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist semaglutide.

This news organization separately asked Phenomix about the sales of MyPhenome Test kits. These cost $499, and about 500 tests have been sold since commercialization started last year, a spokesperson said.

The study was funded by Phenomix Sciences. Separately, Dr. Hurtado Andrade has worked as a consultant for Novo Nordisk and received research support from the National Institutes of Health. 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO, FLORIDA — An analysis of data from 137 patients suggested testing whether people have a trait known as abnormal postprandial satiety (APS), or hungry gut, can predict how well they may respond to the obesity drug semaglutide, although it failed to establish this link for the somewhat similar tirzepatide.

At the American Diabetes Association (ADA) Scientific Sessions, Maria Daniela Hurtado Andrade, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, presented results of a study using the MyPhenome Hungry Gut test, which was developed through machine learning, a form of artificial intelligence. 

The test is part of the MyPhenome obesity phenotyping portfolio from Phenomix Sciences, a company founded by Mayo Clinic physicians, scientists, and researchers Andres Acosta, MD, PhD, and Michael Camilleri, MD, DSc. 

At the ADA meeting, Dr. Hurtado Andrade discussed a test of 137 adults: 91 were considered to have a positive biomarker for abnormal postprandial satiety (APS+), and 46 who did not have it were classified as APS−. These were patients of the Mayo Clinic who were already taking obesity drugs and agreed to phenotyping. Of this group, 113 were on semaglutide and 24 on tirzepatide.

At 12 months, among those taking semaglutide, patients classified as APS+ achieved a mean 18% body weight loss compared with 10% in those classified as APS−. But the test didn’t find these kinds of differences for the tirzepatide group, with a mean 19.4% body weight loss in the APS+ group and a mean loss of 22.1% in the APS− group.

Further studies are warranted to assess the clinical utility of these biomarkers, Dr. Hurtado Andrade said. But these findings do support “the use of precision medicine for obesity based on an individual’s genetic background,” she said.

Dr. Hurtado Andrade’s presentation impressed fellow researchers who noted it as an early step toward the long-sought goal of more personalized medicine.

Daniel S. Hsia, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, who led the ADA session at which Dr. Hurtado Andrade presented, said it was good to see new information being presented about using genetic risk scoring in obesity.

“The numbers were very small for the tirzepatide group as compared to the semaglutide group, so it’s a little hard to really come to any significant conclusions,” Dr. Hsia said in an interview.

At the ADA meeting, Ajay D. Rao, MD, MMSc, of Temple University, Philadelphia, said clinicians are excited about the idea of having biomarkers to aid in decisions about approaches to obesity.

In a follow-up interview with this news organization, Dr. Rao said he too is looking to see more testing of this approach to care, while describing Hurtado Andrade’s work as a “very well-done study.”

“We still need to see more large-scale studies of responsiveness to certain interventions,” he said. 

Dr. Hurtado Andrade noted that researchers at academic centers such as Mayo can try to hone in the combination of genetic and other factors that led to obesity, such as emotional eating patterns and abnormal postprandial satiety. 

But this approach is not widely scalable, as it demands resources of time and staffing that not all clinicians and patients enjoy.

“To overcome this challenge, our team has been working on developing biomarkers” such as the machine-learning gene risk score used to predict abnormal postprandial satiety, she said.

Findings for a related project were presented in May at Digestive Disease Week, as this news organization reported earlier. In that study, researchers calculated the genetic risk score for 84 adults undergoing weight loss interventions at Mayo Clinic who were prescribed the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist semaglutide.

This news organization separately asked Phenomix about the sales of MyPhenome Test kits. These cost $499, and about 500 tests have been sold since commercialization started last year, a spokesperson said.

The study was funded by Phenomix Sciences. Separately, Dr. Hurtado Andrade has worked as a consultant for Novo Nordisk and received research support from the National Institutes of Health. 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO, FLORIDA — An analysis of data from 137 patients suggested testing whether people have a trait known as abnormal postprandial satiety (APS), or hungry gut, can predict how well they may respond to the obesity drug semaglutide, although it failed to establish this link for the somewhat similar tirzepatide.

At the American Diabetes Association (ADA) Scientific Sessions, Maria Daniela Hurtado Andrade, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, presented results of a study using the MyPhenome Hungry Gut test, which was developed through machine learning, a form of artificial intelligence. 

The test is part of the MyPhenome obesity phenotyping portfolio from Phenomix Sciences, a company founded by Mayo Clinic physicians, scientists, and researchers Andres Acosta, MD, PhD, and Michael Camilleri, MD, DSc. 

At the ADA meeting, Dr. Hurtado Andrade discussed a test of 137 adults: 91 were considered to have a positive biomarker for abnormal postprandial satiety (APS+), and 46 who did not have it were classified as APS−. These were patients of the Mayo Clinic who were already taking obesity drugs and agreed to phenotyping. Of this group, 113 were on semaglutide and 24 on tirzepatide.

At 12 months, among those taking semaglutide, patients classified as APS+ achieved a mean 18% body weight loss compared with 10% in those classified as APS−. But the test didn’t find these kinds of differences for the tirzepatide group, with a mean 19.4% body weight loss in the APS+ group and a mean loss of 22.1% in the APS− group.

Further studies are warranted to assess the clinical utility of these biomarkers, Dr. Hurtado Andrade said. But these findings do support “the use of precision medicine for obesity based on an individual’s genetic background,” she said.

Dr. Hurtado Andrade’s presentation impressed fellow researchers who noted it as an early step toward the long-sought goal of more personalized medicine.

Daniel S. Hsia, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, who led the ADA session at which Dr. Hurtado Andrade presented, said it was good to see new information being presented about using genetic risk scoring in obesity.

“The numbers were very small for the tirzepatide group as compared to the semaglutide group, so it’s a little hard to really come to any significant conclusions,” Dr. Hsia said in an interview.

At the ADA meeting, Ajay D. Rao, MD, MMSc, of Temple University, Philadelphia, said clinicians are excited about the idea of having biomarkers to aid in decisions about approaches to obesity.

In a follow-up interview with this news organization, Dr. Rao said he too is looking to see more testing of this approach to care, while describing Hurtado Andrade’s work as a “very well-done study.”

“We still need to see more large-scale studies of responsiveness to certain interventions,” he said. 

Dr. Hurtado Andrade noted that researchers at academic centers such as Mayo can try to hone in the combination of genetic and other factors that led to obesity, such as emotional eating patterns and abnormal postprandial satiety. 

But this approach is not widely scalable, as it demands resources of time and staffing that not all clinicians and patients enjoy.

“To overcome this challenge, our team has been working on developing biomarkers” such as the machine-learning gene risk score used to predict abnormal postprandial satiety, she said.

Findings for a related project were presented in May at Digestive Disease Week, as this news organization reported earlier. In that study, researchers calculated the genetic risk score for 84 adults undergoing weight loss interventions at Mayo Clinic who were prescribed the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist semaglutide.

This news organization separately asked Phenomix about the sales of MyPhenome Test kits. These cost $499, and about 500 tests have been sold since commercialization started last year, a spokesperson said.

The study was funded by Phenomix Sciences. Separately, Dr. Hurtado Andrade has worked as a consultant for Novo Nordisk and received research support from the National Institutes of Health. 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO, Florida — Clinicians should keep in mind concerns about overdiagnosis of thyroid cancer when prescribing glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) drugs, as the US boxed warning about this risk for this class of medicines for certain tumors in mice could trigger excess screening, an expert endocrinologist said.

Speaking at the annual American Diabetes Association (ADA) 84th Scientific Sessions, Elizabeth N. Pearce, MD, MSc, a professor of medicine at Boston University, Boston, reviewed the different approaches US and European regulators have taken for the GLP-1 drugs. She also explained the current concerns about the wide use of thyroid screening in general and how these intersect with the rapid uptake of the GLP-1 drugs.

“We should not be screening for thyroid nodules before or during GLP-1 receptor agonist treatment just because the patients are on these medications,” said Dr. Pearce, who is also a former board president of the American Thyroid Association (ATA). “We do not want to contribute to this epidemic of overdiagnosis of thyroid cancer.”

The ATA and the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) are among the health organizations that have in recent years sought to boost public awareness of the potential risks for excess screening of thyroid nodules. In 2017, the USPSTF, which influences insurance coverage, recommended against routine screening for thyroid cancer in asymptomatic adults. At that time, the incidence of thyroid cancer detection had increased by 4.5% per year over a decade, faster than for any other cancer, but without a corresponding change in the mortality rate, USPSTF said.

“Unequivocally, the thyroid cancer mortality has not kept pace with thyroid cancer detection,” Dr. Pearce said at the ADA meeting. “We’ve been diagnosing a lot of small thyroid cancers that people would otherwise have been destined to die with and not die of.”

Dr. Pearce said clinicians should be careful not to overly restrict access to GLP-1 drugs due to concerns about thyroid cancer — and they should use care in screening nodules.

It’s possible that the weight loss experienced by people taking GLP-1 drugs may make preexisting thyroid nodules more prominent, Dr. Pearce said. It’s also likely that the US boxed warning on thyroid risk on GLP-1 drugs makes clinicians and patients more likely to look for these kinds of growths.

Dr. Pearce urged adherence to guidelines such as the ones the ATA published in 2015 for assessing nodules.

In an interview with this news organization, Dr. Pearce noted the frequency of CT scans in US medical practice in turning up many incidental thyroid nodules, a finding that can cause some panic for patients and their clinicians.

But it helps to put these findings in context, as by the age of 50, about 40% of women will have at least one thyroid nodule, making this a very common finding, she said.

“The vast majority are not malignant,” Dr. Pearce said. “When you explain this to patients, it alleviates anxiety.”
 

The US, European Union Differences

In the United States, the label for GLP-1 drugs starts with a boxed warning about thyroid C-cell tumors seen in rodents given these medicines in testing.

It’s unknown if the medicines could cause medullary thyroid carcinoma (MTC) in humans, the label adds. The drug is contraindicated in patients with a personal or family history of MTC or multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome 2, the boxed warning says. This is based largely on data seen in laboratory rats.

“It’s a big black box warning that gets people’s attention,” Dr. Pearce said. “Important to note that if you practice in Europe, you will not be familiar with this labeling because it doesn’t exist there. They’ve never had this warning on the European package.”

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) does include information about the results of rodent studies as part of the discussion of known and potential risks for GLP-1 drugs but has not emphasized it in the same way as the US drug labels do.

For example, the public assessment report posted on the EMA website for semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) notes that nonlethal thyroid C-cell tumors “observed in rodents are a class effect for GLP-1 receptor agonists.” It’s possible that these may be due to a particular sensitivity in rodents, the report said.

“The relevance for humans is considered to be low but cannot be completely excluded,” the EMA report said in the product information section of the report.

There has been ongoing interest in the issue.

The EMA’s Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) in October concluded that the available evidence does not support a causal association between GLP-1 receptor agonists and thyroid cancer.

The EMA’s PRAC safety committee said it began assessing the evidence about a possible connection following the publication of a study in 2022 in the journal Diabetes Care. That paper reported on an analysis that suggested increased risk for all thyroid cancer and medullary thyroid cancer with the use of GLP-1 drugs, particularly after 1-3 years of treatment.

The EMA’s PRAC said that in making its decision, it also considered other published papers on this topic as well as clinical and postmarketing data on GLP-1 drugs.

In an email interview, Jean-Luc Faillie, MD, PhD, corresponding author of the Diabetes Care paper, called for continued “vigilance and prudence in clinical practice” with GLP-1 drugs.

His paper reported on a case-control analysis on the basis of reports from the French national healthcare insurance system database, looking at people who had taken GLP-1 drugs and similar people who had not.

Due to a lack of a specific diagnostic code for medullary thyroid cancers, the researchers used a composite definition combining thyroid cancer diagnosis with several calcitonin tests, a carcinoembryonic antigen test, or a specific treatment (vandetanib) to identify potential cases of this cancer.

It’s possible that this method could have led to overestimation of MTC among the cases of thyroid cancer, wrote Dr. Faillie, who is a professor at France’s Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, France, and part of its pharmacological vigilance service.

“Nevertheless, it’s crucial to emphasize that any potential overestimation of MTC cases would likely apply equally to both GLP-1 receptor agonist–exposed and unexposed groups,” Dr. Faillie wrote. “Therefore, it should not significantly impact our main findings regarding the suggested increased risk associated with GLP-1 receptor agonist use.”

Dr. Pearce disclosed honoraria for speaking at the Merck China Forum. Dr. Faille and his coauthors reported no conflicts of interest in the publication of their study. Their research was supported by the French Medicines Agency (Agence Nationale de Sécurité du Médicament et des Produits de Santé, grant 2019S015) in the context of a partnership with the Health Product Epidemiology Scientific Interest Group (EPI-PHARE). The study was part of France’s Drugs Systematized Assessment in Real-Life Environment (DRUGS-SAFEr) research program.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO, Florida — Clinicians should keep in mind concerns about overdiagnosis of thyroid cancer when prescribing glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) drugs, as the US boxed warning about this risk for this class of medicines for certain tumors in mice could trigger excess screening, an expert endocrinologist said.

Speaking at the annual American Diabetes Association (ADA) 84th Scientific Sessions, Elizabeth N. Pearce, MD, MSc, a professor of medicine at Boston University, Boston, reviewed the different approaches US and European regulators have taken for the GLP-1 drugs. She also explained the current concerns about the wide use of thyroid screening in general and how these intersect with the rapid uptake of the GLP-1 drugs.

“We should not be screening for thyroid nodules before or during GLP-1 receptor agonist treatment just because the patients are on these medications,” said Dr. Pearce, who is also a former board president of the American Thyroid Association (ATA). “We do not want to contribute to this epidemic of overdiagnosis of thyroid cancer.”

The ATA and the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) are among the health organizations that have in recent years sought to boost public awareness of the potential risks for excess screening of thyroid nodules. In 2017, the USPSTF, which influences insurance coverage, recommended against routine screening for thyroid cancer in asymptomatic adults. At that time, the incidence of thyroid cancer detection had increased by 4.5% per year over a decade, faster than for any other cancer, but without a corresponding change in the mortality rate, USPSTF said.

“Unequivocally, the thyroid cancer mortality has not kept pace with thyroid cancer detection,” Dr. Pearce said at the ADA meeting. “We’ve been diagnosing a lot of small thyroid cancers that people would otherwise have been destined to die with and not die of.”

Dr. Pearce said clinicians should be careful not to overly restrict access to GLP-1 drugs due to concerns about thyroid cancer — and they should use care in screening nodules.

It’s possible that the weight loss experienced by people taking GLP-1 drugs may make preexisting thyroid nodules more prominent, Dr. Pearce said. It’s also likely that the US boxed warning on thyroid risk on GLP-1 drugs makes clinicians and patients more likely to look for these kinds of growths.

Dr. Pearce urged adherence to guidelines such as the ones the ATA published in 2015 for assessing nodules.

In an interview with this news organization, Dr. Pearce noted the frequency of CT scans in US medical practice in turning up many incidental thyroid nodules, a finding that can cause some panic for patients and their clinicians.

But it helps to put these findings in context, as by the age of 50, about 40% of women will have at least one thyroid nodule, making this a very common finding, she said.

“The vast majority are not malignant,” Dr. Pearce said. “When you explain this to patients, it alleviates anxiety.”
 

The US, European Union Differences

In the United States, the label for GLP-1 drugs starts with a boxed warning about thyroid C-cell tumors seen in rodents given these medicines in testing.

It’s unknown if the medicines could cause medullary thyroid carcinoma (MTC) in humans, the label adds. The drug is contraindicated in patients with a personal or family history of MTC or multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome 2, the boxed warning says. This is based largely on data seen in laboratory rats.

“It’s a big black box warning that gets people’s attention,” Dr. Pearce said. “Important to note that if you practice in Europe, you will not be familiar with this labeling because it doesn’t exist there. They’ve never had this warning on the European package.”

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) does include information about the results of rodent studies as part of the discussion of known and potential risks for GLP-1 drugs but has not emphasized it in the same way as the US drug labels do.

For example, the public assessment report posted on the EMA website for semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) notes that nonlethal thyroid C-cell tumors “observed in rodents are a class effect for GLP-1 receptor agonists.” It’s possible that these may be due to a particular sensitivity in rodents, the report said.

“The relevance for humans is considered to be low but cannot be completely excluded,” the EMA report said in the product information section of the report.

There has been ongoing interest in the issue.

The EMA’s Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) in October concluded that the available evidence does not support a causal association between GLP-1 receptor agonists and thyroid cancer.

The EMA’s PRAC safety committee said it began assessing the evidence about a possible connection following the publication of a study in 2022 in the journal Diabetes Care. That paper reported on an analysis that suggested increased risk for all thyroid cancer and medullary thyroid cancer with the use of GLP-1 drugs, particularly after 1-3 years of treatment.

The EMA’s PRAC said that in making its decision, it also considered other published papers on this topic as well as clinical and postmarketing data on GLP-1 drugs.

In an email interview, Jean-Luc Faillie, MD, PhD, corresponding author of the Diabetes Care paper, called for continued “vigilance and prudence in clinical practice” with GLP-1 drugs.

His paper reported on a case-control analysis on the basis of reports from the French national healthcare insurance system database, looking at people who had taken GLP-1 drugs and similar people who had not.

Due to a lack of a specific diagnostic code for medullary thyroid cancers, the researchers used a composite definition combining thyroid cancer diagnosis with several calcitonin tests, a carcinoembryonic antigen test, or a specific treatment (vandetanib) to identify potential cases of this cancer.

It’s possible that this method could have led to overestimation of MTC among the cases of thyroid cancer, wrote Dr. Faillie, who is a professor at France’s Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, France, and part of its pharmacological vigilance service.

“Nevertheless, it’s crucial to emphasize that any potential overestimation of MTC cases would likely apply equally to both GLP-1 receptor agonist–exposed and unexposed groups,” Dr. Faillie wrote. “Therefore, it should not significantly impact our main findings regarding the suggested increased risk associated with GLP-1 receptor agonist use.”

Dr. Pearce disclosed honoraria for speaking at the Merck China Forum. Dr. Faille and his coauthors reported no conflicts of interest in the publication of their study. Their research was supported by the French Medicines Agency (Agence Nationale de Sécurité du Médicament et des Produits de Santé, grant 2019S015) in the context of a partnership with the Health Product Epidemiology Scientific Interest Group (EPI-PHARE). The study was part of France’s Drugs Systematized Assessment in Real-Life Environment (DRUGS-SAFEr) research program.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO, Florida — Clinicians should keep in mind concerns about overdiagnosis of thyroid cancer when prescribing glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) drugs, as the US boxed warning about this risk for this class of medicines for certain tumors in mice could trigger excess screening, an expert endocrinologist said.

Speaking at the annual American Diabetes Association (ADA) 84th Scientific Sessions, Elizabeth N. Pearce, MD, MSc, a professor of medicine at Boston University, Boston, reviewed the different approaches US and European regulators have taken for the GLP-1 drugs. She also explained the current concerns about the wide use of thyroid screening in general and how these intersect with the rapid uptake of the GLP-1 drugs.

“We should not be screening for thyroid nodules before or during GLP-1 receptor agonist treatment just because the patients are on these medications,” said Dr. Pearce, who is also a former board president of the American Thyroid Association (ATA). “We do not want to contribute to this epidemic of overdiagnosis of thyroid cancer.”

The ATA and the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) are among the health organizations that have in recent years sought to boost public awareness of the potential risks for excess screening of thyroid nodules. In 2017, the USPSTF, which influences insurance coverage, recommended against routine screening for thyroid cancer in asymptomatic adults. At that time, the incidence of thyroid cancer detection had increased by 4.5% per year over a decade, faster than for any other cancer, but without a corresponding change in the mortality rate, USPSTF said.

“Unequivocally, the thyroid cancer mortality has not kept pace with thyroid cancer detection,” Dr. Pearce said at the ADA meeting. “We’ve been diagnosing a lot of small thyroid cancers that people would otherwise have been destined to die with and not die of.”

Dr. Pearce said clinicians should be careful not to overly restrict access to GLP-1 drugs due to concerns about thyroid cancer — and they should use care in screening nodules.

It’s possible that the weight loss experienced by people taking GLP-1 drugs may make preexisting thyroid nodules more prominent, Dr. Pearce said. It’s also likely that the US boxed warning on thyroid risk on GLP-1 drugs makes clinicians and patients more likely to look for these kinds of growths.

Dr. Pearce urged adherence to guidelines such as the ones the ATA published in 2015 for assessing nodules.

In an interview with this news organization, Dr. Pearce noted the frequency of CT scans in US medical practice in turning up many incidental thyroid nodules, a finding that can cause some panic for patients and their clinicians.

But it helps to put these findings in context, as by the age of 50, about 40% of women will have at least one thyroid nodule, making this a very common finding, she said.

“The vast majority are not malignant,” Dr. Pearce said. “When you explain this to patients, it alleviates anxiety.”
 

The US, European Union Differences

In the United States, the label for GLP-1 drugs starts with a boxed warning about thyroid C-cell tumors seen in rodents given these medicines in testing.

It’s unknown if the medicines could cause medullary thyroid carcinoma (MTC) in humans, the label adds. The drug is contraindicated in patients with a personal or family history of MTC or multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome 2, the boxed warning says. This is based largely on data seen in laboratory rats.

“It’s a big black box warning that gets people’s attention,” Dr. Pearce said. “Important to note that if you practice in Europe, you will not be familiar with this labeling because it doesn’t exist there. They’ve never had this warning on the European package.”

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) does include information about the results of rodent studies as part of the discussion of known and potential risks for GLP-1 drugs but has not emphasized it in the same way as the US drug labels do.

For example, the public assessment report posted on the EMA website for semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) notes that nonlethal thyroid C-cell tumors “observed in rodents are a class effect for GLP-1 receptor agonists.” It’s possible that these may be due to a particular sensitivity in rodents, the report said.

“The relevance for humans is considered to be low but cannot be completely excluded,” the EMA report said in the product information section of the report.

There has been ongoing interest in the issue.

The EMA’s Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) in October concluded that the available evidence does not support a causal association between GLP-1 receptor agonists and thyroid cancer.

The EMA’s PRAC safety committee said it began assessing the evidence about a possible connection following the publication of a study in 2022 in the journal Diabetes Care. That paper reported on an analysis that suggested increased risk for all thyroid cancer and medullary thyroid cancer with the use of GLP-1 drugs, particularly after 1-3 years of treatment.

The EMA’s PRAC said that in making its decision, it also considered other published papers on this topic as well as clinical and postmarketing data on GLP-1 drugs.

In an email interview, Jean-Luc Faillie, MD, PhD, corresponding author of the Diabetes Care paper, called for continued “vigilance and prudence in clinical practice” with GLP-1 drugs.

His paper reported on a case-control analysis on the basis of reports from the French national healthcare insurance system database, looking at people who had taken GLP-1 drugs and similar people who had not.

Due to a lack of a specific diagnostic code for medullary thyroid cancers, the researchers used a composite definition combining thyroid cancer diagnosis with several calcitonin tests, a carcinoembryonic antigen test, or a specific treatment (vandetanib) to identify potential cases of this cancer.

It’s possible that this method could have led to overestimation of MTC among the cases of thyroid cancer, wrote Dr. Faillie, who is a professor at France’s Université de Montpellier, Montpellier, France, and part of its pharmacological vigilance service.

“Nevertheless, it’s crucial to emphasize that any potential overestimation of MTC cases would likely apply equally to both GLP-1 receptor agonist–exposed and unexposed groups,” Dr. Faillie wrote. “Therefore, it should not significantly impact our main findings regarding the suggested increased risk associated with GLP-1 receptor agonist use.”

Dr. Pearce disclosed honoraria for speaking at the Merck China Forum. Dr. Faille and his coauthors reported no conflicts of interest in the publication of their study. Their research was supported by the French Medicines Agency (Agence Nationale de Sécurité du Médicament et des Produits de Santé, grant 2019S015) in the context of a partnership with the Health Product Epidemiology Scientific Interest Group (EPI-PHARE). The study was part of France’s Drugs Systematized Assessment in Real-Life Environment (DRUGS-SAFEr) research program.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The largest US physician organization wrestled with the professional risks and rewards of artificial intelligence (AI) at its annual meeting, delaying action even as it adopted new policies on prior authorization and other concerns for clinicians and patients.

Physicians and medical students at the annual meeting of the American Medical Association (AMA) House of Delegates in Chicago intensely debated a report and two key resolutions on AI but could not reach consensus, pushing off decision-making until a future meeting in November.

One resolution would establish “augmented intelligence” as the preferred term for AI, reflecting the desired role of these tools in supporting — not making — physicians’ decisions. The other resolution focused on insurers’ use of AI in determining medical necessity.

(See specific policies adopted at the meeting, held June 8-12, below.)

A comprehensive AMA trustees’ report on AI considered additional issues including requirements for disclosing AI use, liability for harms due to flawed application of AI, data privacy, and cybersecurity.

The AMA intends to “continue to methodically assess these issues and make informed recommendations in proposing new policy,” said Bobby Mukkamala, MD, an otolaryngologist from Flint, Michigan, who became the AMA’s new president-elect.

AMA members at the meeting largely applauded the aim of these AI proposals, but some objected to parts of the trustees’ report.

They raised questions about what, exactly, constitutes an AI-powered service and whether all AI tools need the kind of guardrails the AMA may seek. There also were concerns about calls to make AI use more transparent.

While transparency might be an admirable goal, it might prove too hard to achieve given that AI-powered tools and products are already woven into medical practice in ways that physicians may not know or understand, said Christopher Libby, MD, MPH, a clinical informaticist and emergency physician at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

“It’s hard for the practicing clinician to know how every piece of technology works in order to describe it to the patient,” Dr. Libby said at the meeting. “How many people here can identify when algorithms are used in their EHR today?”

He suggested asking for more transparency from the companies that make and sell AI-powered software and tools to insurers and healthcare systems.

Steven H. Kroft, MD, the editor of the American Journal of Clinical Pathology, raised concerns about the unintended harm that unchecked use of AI may pose to scientific research.

He asked the AMA to address “a significant omission in an otherwise comprehensive report” — the need to protect the integrity of study results that can direct patient care.

“While sham science is not a new issue, large language models make it far easier for authors to generate fake papers and far harder for editors, reviewers, and publishers to identify them,” Dr. Kroft said. “This is a rapidly growing phenomenon that is threatening the integrity of the literature. These papers become embedded in the evidence bases that drive clinical decision-making.”

AMA has been working with specialty societies and outside AI experts to refine an effective set of recommendations. The new policies, once finalized, are intended to build on steps AMA already has taken, including last year releasing principles for AI development, deployment, and use.
 

Congress Mulling

The AMA delegates are far from alone in facing AI policy challenges.

Leaders in Congress also are examining AI guardrails, with influential panels such as the Senate Finance and House Energy and Commerce committees holding hearings.

A key congressional AI effort to watch is the expected implementation of a bipartisan Senate “road map,” which Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and colleagues released in May, said Miranda A. Franco, a senior policy advisor at the law firm Holland & Knight.

The product of many months of deliberation, this Senate road map identifies priorities for future legislation, including:

• Creating appropriate guardrails and safety measures to protect patients.
• Making healthcare and biomedical data available for machine learning and data science research while carefully addressing privacy issues.
• Providing transparency for clinicians and the public about the use of AI in medical products and clinical support services, including the data used to train models.
• Examining the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ reimbursement mechanisms as well as guardrails to ensure accountability, appropriate use, and broad application of AI across all populations.

Congress likely will address issues of AI in healthcare in piecemeal fashion, taking on different aspects of these challenges at different times, Ms. Franco said. The Senate road map gives the key committees directions on where to proceed in their efforts to develop new laws.

“I think this is all going to be slow and rolling, not big and sweeping,” Ms. Franco told this news organization. “I don’t think we’re going to see an encompassing AI bill.”
 

AMA Policies Adopted on Other Issues

At the June meeting, AMA delegates adopted the following policies aiming to:

• Increase oversight and accountability of health insurers’ use of prior authorization controls on patient access to care.
• Encourage policy changes allowing physicians to receive loan forgiveness when they practice in an Indian Health Service, Tribal, or Urban Indian Health Program, similar to physicians practicing in a Veterans Administration facility.
• Advocate for federal policy that limits a patient’s out-of-pocket cost to be the same or less than the amount that a patient with traditional Medicare plus a Medigap plan would pay.
• Oppose state or national legislation that could criminalize in vitro fertilization.
• Limit what the AMA calls the “expensive” cost for Medicare Advantage enrollees who need physician-administered drugs or biologics.
• Help physicians address the handling of de-identified patient data in a rapidly changing digital health ecosystem.
• Support efforts to decriminalize the possession of non-prescribed buprenorphine for personal use by individuals who lack access to a physician for the treatment of opioid use disorder.
• Expand access to hearing, vision, and dental care. The new AMA policy advocates working with state medical associations to support coverage of hearing exams, hearing aids, cochlear implants, and vision exams and aids. The revised AMA policy also supports working with the American Dental Association and other national organizations to improve access to dental care for people enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP programs.
• Increase enrollment of more women and sexual and gender minority populations in clinical trials.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The largest US physician organization wrestled with the professional risks and rewards of artificial intelligence (AI) at its annual meeting, delaying action even as it adopted new policies on prior authorization and other concerns for clinicians and patients.

Physicians and medical students at the annual meeting of the American Medical Association (AMA) House of Delegates in Chicago intensely debated a report and two key resolutions on AI but could not reach consensus, pushing off decision-making until a future meeting in November.

One resolution would establish “augmented intelligence” as the preferred term for AI, reflecting the desired role of these tools in supporting — not making — physicians’ decisions. The other resolution focused on insurers’ use of AI in determining medical necessity.

(See specific policies adopted at the meeting, held June 8-12, below.)

A comprehensive AMA trustees’ report on AI considered additional issues including requirements for disclosing AI use, liability for harms due to flawed application of AI, data privacy, and cybersecurity.

The AMA intends to “continue to methodically assess these issues and make informed recommendations in proposing new policy,” said Bobby Mukkamala, MD, an otolaryngologist from Flint, Michigan, who became the AMA’s new president-elect.

AMA members at the meeting largely applauded the aim of these AI proposals, but some objected to parts of the trustees’ report.

They raised questions about what, exactly, constitutes an AI-powered service and whether all AI tools need the kind of guardrails the AMA may seek. There also were concerns about calls to make AI use more transparent.

While transparency might be an admirable goal, it might prove too hard to achieve given that AI-powered tools and products are already woven into medical practice in ways that physicians may not know or understand, said Christopher Libby, MD, MPH, a clinical informaticist and emergency physician at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

“It’s hard for the practicing clinician to know how every piece of technology works in order to describe it to the patient,” Dr. Libby said at the meeting. “How many people here can identify when algorithms are used in their EHR today?”

He suggested asking for more transparency from the companies that make and sell AI-powered software and tools to insurers and healthcare systems.

Steven H. Kroft, MD, the editor of the American Journal of Clinical Pathology, raised concerns about the unintended harm that unchecked use of AI may pose to scientific research.

He asked the AMA to address “a significant omission in an otherwise comprehensive report” — the need to protect the integrity of study results that can direct patient care.

“While sham science is not a new issue, large language models make it far easier for authors to generate fake papers and far harder for editors, reviewers, and publishers to identify them,” Dr. Kroft said. “This is a rapidly growing phenomenon that is threatening the integrity of the literature. These papers become embedded in the evidence bases that drive clinical decision-making.”

AMA has been working with specialty societies and outside AI experts to refine an effective set of recommendations. The new policies, once finalized, are intended to build on steps AMA already has taken, including last year releasing principles for AI development, deployment, and use.
 

Congress Mulling

The AMA delegates are far from alone in facing AI policy challenges.

Leaders in Congress also are examining AI guardrails, with influential panels such as the Senate Finance and House Energy and Commerce committees holding hearings.

A key congressional AI effort to watch is the expected implementation of a bipartisan Senate “road map,” which Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and colleagues released in May, said Miranda A. Franco, a senior policy advisor at the law firm Holland & Knight.

The product of many months of deliberation, this Senate road map identifies priorities for future legislation, including:

• Creating appropriate guardrails and safety measures to protect patients.
• Making healthcare and biomedical data available for machine learning and data science research while carefully addressing privacy issues.
• Providing transparency for clinicians and the public about the use of AI in medical products and clinical support services, including the data used to train models.
• Examining the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ reimbursement mechanisms as well as guardrails to ensure accountability, appropriate use, and broad application of AI across all populations.

Congress likely will address issues of AI in healthcare in piecemeal fashion, taking on different aspects of these challenges at different times, Ms. Franco said. The Senate road map gives the key committees directions on where to proceed in their efforts to develop new laws.

“I think this is all going to be slow and rolling, not big and sweeping,” Ms. Franco told this news organization. “I don’t think we’re going to see an encompassing AI bill.”
 

AMA Policies Adopted on Other Issues

At the June meeting, AMA delegates adopted the following policies aiming to:

• Increase oversight and accountability of health insurers’ use of prior authorization controls on patient access to care.
• Encourage policy changes allowing physicians to receive loan forgiveness when they practice in an Indian Health Service, Tribal, or Urban Indian Health Program, similar to physicians practicing in a Veterans Administration facility.
• Advocate for federal policy that limits a patient’s out-of-pocket cost to be the same or less than the amount that a patient with traditional Medicare plus a Medigap plan would pay.
• Oppose state or national legislation that could criminalize in vitro fertilization.
• Limit what the AMA calls the “expensive” cost for Medicare Advantage enrollees who need physician-administered drugs or biologics.
• Help physicians address the handling of de-identified patient data in a rapidly changing digital health ecosystem.
• Support efforts to decriminalize the possession of non-prescribed buprenorphine for personal use by individuals who lack access to a physician for the treatment of opioid use disorder.
• Expand access to hearing, vision, and dental care. The new AMA policy advocates working with state medical associations to support coverage of hearing exams, hearing aids, cochlear implants, and vision exams and aids. The revised AMA policy also supports working with the American Dental Association and other national organizations to improve access to dental care for people enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP programs.
• Increase enrollment of more women and sexual and gender minority populations in clinical trials.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The largest US physician organization wrestled with the professional risks and rewards of artificial intelligence (AI) at its annual meeting, delaying action even as it adopted new policies on prior authorization and other concerns for clinicians and patients.

Physicians and medical students at the annual meeting of the American Medical Association (AMA) House of Delegates in Chicago intensely debated a report and two key resolutions on AI but could not reach consensus, pushing off decision-making until a future meeting in November.

One resolution would establish “augmented intelligence” as the preferred term for AI, reflecting the desired role of these tools in supporting — not making — physicians’ decisions. The other resolution focused on insurers’ use of AI in determining medical necessity.

(See specific policies adopted at the meeting, held June 8-12, below.)

A comprehensive AMA trustees’ report on AI considered additional issues including requirements for disclosing AI use, liability for harms due to flawed application of AI, data privacy, and cybersecurity.

The AMA intends to “continue to methodically assess these issues and make informed recommendations in proposing new policy,” said Bobby Mukkamala, MD, an otolaryngologist from Flint, Michigan, who became the AMA’s new president-elect.

AMA members at the meeting largely applauded the aim of these AI proposals, but some objected to parts of the trustees’ report.

They raised questions about what, exactly, constitutes an AI-powered service and whether all AI tools need the kind of guardrails the AMA may seek. There also were concerns about calls to make AI use more transparent.

While transparency might be an admirable goal, it might prove too hard to achieve given that AI-powered tools and products are already woven into medical practice in ways that physicians may not know or understand, said Christopher Libby, MD, MPH, a clinical informaticist and emergency physician at Cedars Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

“It’s hard for the practicing clinician to know how every piece of technology works in order to describe it to the patient,” Dr. Libby said at the meeting. “How many people here can identify when algorithms are used in their EHR today?”

He suggested asking for more transparency from the companies that make and sell AI-powered software and tools to insurers and healthcare systems.

Steven H. Kroft, MD, the editor of the American Journal of Clinical Pathology, raised concerns about the unintended harm that unchecked use of AI may pose to scientific research.

He asked the AMA to address “a significant omission in an otherwise comprehensive report” — the need to protect the integrity of study results that can direct patient care.

“While sham science is not a new issue, large language models make it far easier for authors to generate fake papers and far harder for editors, reviewers, and publishers to identify them,” Dr. Kroft said. “This is a rapidly growing phenomenon that is threatening the integrity of the literature. These papers become embedded in the evidence bases that drive clinical decision-making.”

AMA has been working with specialty societies and outside AI experts to refine an effective set of recommendations. The new policies, once finalized, are intended to build on steps AMA already has taken, including last year releasing principles for AI development, deployment, and use.
 

Congress Mulling

The AMA delegates are far from alone in facing AI policy challenges.

Leaders in Congress also are examining AI guardrails, with influential panels such as the Senate Finance and House Energy and Commerce committees holding hearings.

A key congressional AI effort to watch is the expected implementation of a bipartisan Senate “road map,” which Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and colleagues released in May, said Miranda A. Franco, a senior policy advisor at the law firm Holland & Knight.

The product of many months of deliberation, this Senate road map identifies priorities for future legislation, including:

• Creating appropriate guardrails and safety measures to protect patients.
• Making healthcare and biomedical data available for machine learning and data science research while carefully addressing privacy issues.
• Providing transparency for clinicians and the public about the use of AI in medical products and clinical support services, including the data used to train models.
• Examining the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ reimbursement mechanisms as well as guardrails to ensure accountability, appropriate use, and broad application of AI across all populations.

Congress likely will address issues of AI in healthcare in piecemeal fashion, taking on different aspects of these challenges at different times, Ms. Franco said. The Senate road map gives the key committees directions on where to proceed in their efforts to develop new laws.

“I think this is all going to be slow and rolling, not big and sweeping,” Ms. Franco told this news organization. “I don’t think we’re going to see an encompassing AI bill.”
 

AMA Policies Adopted on Other Issues

At the June meeting, AMA delegates adopted the following policies aiming to:

• Increase oversight and accountability of health insurers’ use of prior authorization controls on patient access to care.
• Encourage policy changes allowing physicians to receive loan forgiveness when they practice in an Indian Health Service, Tribal, or Urban Indian Health Program, similar to physicians practicing in a Veterans Administration facility.
• Advocate for federal policy that limits a patient’s out-of-pocket cost to be the same or less than the amount that a patient with traditional Medicare plus a Medigap plan would pay.
• Oppose state or national legislation that could criminalize in vitro fertilization.
• Limit what the AMA calls the “expensive” cost for Medicare Advantage enrollees who need physician-administered drugs or biologics.
• Help physicians address the handling of de-identified patient data in a rapidly changing digital health ecosystem.
• Support efforts to decriminalize the possession of non-prescribed buprenorphine for personal use by individuals who lack access to a physician for the treatment of opioid use disorder.
• Expand access to hearing, vision, and dental care. The new AMA policy advocates working with state medical associations to support coverage of hearing exams, hearing aids, cochlear implants, and vision exams and aids. The revised AMA policy also supports working with the American Dental Association and other national organizations to improve access to dental care for people enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP programs.
• Increase enrollment of more women and sexual and gender minority populations in clinical trials.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An influential US panel may largely reaffirm its current recommendation in favor of screening older women to prevent osteoporotic fractures, while also repeating its call for more research to try to determine whether men would benefit from this kind of routine testing.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on June 11 released a draft update of its recommendations on osteoporosis screening. The task force will accept comments on the draft through July 8. Federal law gives the USPSTF recommendations extra clout, requiring insurers to cover — without co-pay — services that get top marks “A” or “B” from the task force.

The task force intends to maintain a “B” recommendation on screening of older women, indicating that the evidence gathered to date suggests a moderate net benefit. But the draft includes a shift in the approach to this screening.

The USPSTF proposed saying that it recommends screening for osteoporosis in both women aged 65 years and older and postmenopausal women younger than 65 years who are at an increased risk for an osteoporotic fracture. The current recommendation, finalized in 2018, advises “screening for osteoporosis with bone measurement testing [emphasis added]” for these groups.

The proposed change in language — dropping the phrase “with bone measurement testing” — is intended to expand flexibility for clinicians, Esa Davis, MD, MPH, a member of USPSTF and a professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

USPSTF

University of Chicago Medicine

Insufficient Evidence

The USPSTF’s “I” grade is different from a “D” grade, which is what the task force uses to recommend against the use of a service.

A “D” grade means the USPSTF says there is moderate or high certainty that the service has no net benefit or that the harms outweigh the benefits. (The USPSTF makes it easy to search online for grades given to preventive services, including those that got a “D.”)

The USPSTF is calling for more studies on the benefits and harms of screening for osteoporosis to prevent fractures and related morbidity and mortality in men.

“Men do get osteoporosis,” Dr. Davis said. “But unfortunately, the evidence isn’t there” to allow USPSTF to make a recommendation on screening approaches.

“Any man who has concerns about bone health should certainly talk to his clinician and figure out what is the best form of screening” he might want to do, she said.

There’s been a growing interest in the question of whether to screen men for osteoporosis and bone health. For example, Osteoporosis Canada last year updated a guideline to emphasize the need to assess older patients of both sexes for the risk for fractures. But the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care in 2023 came to a conclusion in line with the USPSTF draft.

The Canadian task force recommended against routine screening in men, while adding that clinicians should be alert to changes in health that may indicate the patient has experienced or is at a higher risk for fragility fracture.
 

Risk Factors, Concerns About Tests

The USPSTF said that risk factors associated with fragility fractures are similar in men and women. These include:

• Increasing age
• Low body mass index
• Excessive alcohol intake
• Current smoking
• Chronic corticosteroid use
• History of prior fractures, falls within the past year, cerebrovascular accident, and diabetes
• Hypogonadism

The process of updating the USPSTF recommendations can serve as a chance to expand public awareness about osteoporosis, as many men may not know to raise the question of their fracture risk during medical appointments, Dr. Davis said.

“Clinicians need to be aware of the risk factors and to be able to have conversations with men,” she said.

Dr. Davis also cautioned about the need to be aware of limitations with clinical risk assessment tools. In the draft recommendation statement, the USPSTF noted that some tools and approaches may be less likely to identify Black, Hispanic, and Asian people as high risk, and subsequently, clinicians may be less likely to offer treatment to them compared with White people of the same age, bone mineral density, and clinical risk profile.

Dr. Davis had no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Jain received research funding from the Amgen Foundation.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An influential US panel may largely reaffirm its current recommendation in favor of screening older women to prevent osteoporotic fractures, while also repeating its call for more research to try to determine whether men would benefit from this kind of routine testing.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on June 11 released a draft update of its recommendations on osteoporosis screening. The task force will accept comments on the draft through July 8. Federal law gives the USPSTF recommendations extra clout, requiring insurers to cover — without co-pay — services that get top marks “A” or “B” from the task force.

The task force intends to maintain a “B” recommendation on screening of older women, indicating that the evidence gathered to date suggests a moderate net benefit. But the draft includes a shift in the approach to this screening.

The USPSTF proposed saying that it recommends screening for osteoporosis in both women aged 65 years and older and postmenopausal women younger than 65 years who are at an increased risk for an osteoporotic fracture. The current recommendation, finalized in 2018, advises “screening for osteoporosis with bone measurement testing [emphasis added]” for these groups.

The proposed change in language — dropping the phrase “with bone measurement testing” — is intended to expand flexibility for clinicians, Esa Davis, MD, MPH, a member of USPSTF and a professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

USPSTF

University of Chicago Medicine

Insufficient Evidence

The USPSTF’s “I” grade is different from a “D” grade, which is what the task force uses to recommend against the use of a service.

A “D” grade means the USPSTF says there is moderate or high certainty that the service has no net benefit or that the harms outweigh the benefits. (The USPSTF makes it easy to search online for grades given to preventive services, including those that got a “D.”)

The USPSTF is calling for more studies on the benefits and harms of screening for osteoporosis to prevent fractures and related morbidity and mortality in men.

“Men do get osteoporosis,” Dr. Davis said. “But unfortunately, the evidence isn’t there” to allow USPSTF to make a recommendation on screening approaches.

“Any man who has concerns about bone health should certainly talk to his clinician and figure out what is the best form of screening” he might want to do, she said.

There’s been a growing interest in the question of whether to screen men for osteoporosis and bone health. For example, Osteoporosis Canada last year updated a guideline to emphasize the need to assess older patients of both sexes for the risk for fractures. But the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care in 2023 came to a conclusion in line with the USPSTF draft.

The Canadian task force recommended against routine screening in men, while adding that clinicians should be alert to changes in health that may indicate the patient has experienced or is at a higher risk for fragility fracture.
 

Risk Factors, Concerns About Tests

The USPSTF said that risk factors associated with fragility fractures are similar in men and women. These include:

• Increasing age
• Low body mass index
• Excessive alcohol intake
• Current smoking
• Chronic corticosteroid use
• History of prior fractures, falls within the past year, cerebrovascular accident, and diabetes
• Hypogonadism

The process of updating the USPSTF recommendations can serve as a chance to expand public awareness about osteoporosis, as many men may not know to raise the question of their fracture risk during medical appointments, Dr. Davis said.

“Clinicians need to be aware of the risk factors and to be able to have conversations with men,” she said.

Dr. Davis also cautioned about the need to be aware of limitations with clinical risk assessment tools. In the draft recommendation statement, the USPSTF noted that some tools and approaches may be less likely to identify Black, Hispanic, and Asian people as high risk, and subsequently, clinicians may be less likely to offer treatment to them compared with White people of the same age, bone mineral density, and clinical risk profile.

Dr. Davis had no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Jain received research funding from the Amgen Foundation.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An influential US panel may largely reaffirm its current recommendation in favor of screening older women to prevent osteoporotic fractures, while also repeating its call for more research to try to determine whether men would benefit from this kind of routine testing.

The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on June 11 released a draft update of its recommendations on osteoporosis screening. The task force will accept comments on the draft through July 8. Federal law gives the USPSTF recommendations extra clout, requiring insurers to cover — without co-pay — services that get top marks “A” or “B” from the task force.

The task force intends to maintain a “B” recommendation on screening of older women, indicating that the evidence gathered to date suggests a moderate net benefit. But the draft includes a shift in the approach to this screening.

The USPSTF proposed saying that it recommends screening for osteoporosis in both women aged 65 years and older and postmenopausal women younger than 65 years who are at an increased risk for an osteoporotic fracture. The current recommendation, finalized in 2018, advises “screening for osteoporosis with bone measurement testing [emphasis added]” for these groups.

The proposed change in language — dropping the phrase “with bone measurement testing” — is intended to expand flexibility for clinicians, Esa Davis, MD, MPH, a member of USPSTF and a professor at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

USPSTF

University of Chicago Medicine

Insufficient Evidence

The USPSTF’s “I” grade is different from a “D” grade, which is what the task force uses to recommend against the use of a service.

A “D” grade means the USPSTF says there is moderate or high certainty that the service has no net benefit or that the harms outweigh the benefits. (The USPSTF makes it easy to search online for grades given to preventive services, including those that got a “D.”)

The USPSTF is calling for more studies on the benefits and harms of screening for osteoporosis to prevent fractures and related morbidity and mortality in men.

“Men do get osteoporosis,” Dr. Davis said. “But unfortunately, the evidence isn’t there” to allow USPSTF to make a recommendation on screening approaches.

“Any man who has concerns about bone health should certainly talk to his clinician and figure out what is the best form of screening” he might want to do, she said.

There’s been a growing interest in the question of whether to screen men for osteoporosis and bone health. For example, Osteoporosis Canada last year updated a guideline to emphasize the need to assess older patients of both sexes for the risk for fractures. But the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care in 2023 came to a conclusion in line with the USPSTF draft.

The Canadian task force recommended against routine screening in men, while adding that clinicians should be alert to changes in health that may indicate the patient has experienced or is at a higher risk for fragility fracture.
 

Risk Factors, Concerns About Tests

The USPSTF said that risk factors associated with fragility fractures are similar in men and women. These include:

• Increasing age
• Low body mass index
• Excessive alcohol intake
• Current smoking
• Chronic corticosteroid use
• History of prior fractures, falls within the past year, cerebrovascular accident, and diabetes
• Hypogonadism

The process of updating the USPSTF recommendations can serve as a chance to expand public awareness about osteoporosis, as many men may not know to raise the question of their fracture risk during medical appointments, Dr. Davis said.

“Clinicians need to be aware of the risk factors and to be able to have conversations with men,” she said.

Dr. Davis also cautioned about the need to be aware of limitations with clinical risk assessment tools. In the draft recommendation statement, the USPSTF noted that some tools and approaches may be less likely to identify Black, Hispanic, and Asian people as high risk, and subsequently, clinicians may be less likely to offer treatment to them compared with White people of the same age, bone mineral density, and clinical risk profile.

Dr. Davis had no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Jain received research funding from the Amgen Foundation.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.